A major breakthrough

[David Orsam]

It's a funny thing that Pierre started this thread specifically to talk about his "major breakthrough" but now he doesn't seem to want to talk about it at all, not even to answer simple questions as to how it came about.

[David Orsam]

Interesting that you now say "an archive" Pierre.

Do you mind if I ask you why you said earlier today, "But I did find it in the archive yesterday"? Was the reference to "the archive" just a careless typing error or did you actually mean to type that? If so, why did you refer to it as "the archive" rather than "an archive"?

This question wasn't answered Pierre and your failure to answer a simple question like this is making me suspicious.

Is "the archive" that you refer to, in fact, the British Newspaper Archive?

And is it, perhaps, a report of an inquest, or maybe an obituary, which provides this medical information?

[GUT]

It's a funny thing that Pierre started this thread specifically to talk about his "major breakthrough" but now he doesn't seem to want to talk about it at all, not even to answer simple questions as to how it came about.

Not strange at all, rather typical of his behaviour since he started a thread "I think I've found him" over a year ago, at which time he was pretending to be a scientist, then he decided it would be better to pretend he had a masters in sociology, then he thought that claiming to be an Academic Hustorian (when his Historical Methodology has been laughed at by every Hustorian I have shown it to ot discussed it with).

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi,

It is a medical record/medical note in an archive.

Regards, Pierre

Thank you Pierre. When you say 'medical record/medical note', do you mean an original or facsimile copy of the subject's medical records? Is this, for example, a copy of a post-mortem report?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi PcDunn,

Yes, I can explain it so you understand.

The biological explanatory variable is in a source showing that there was a severe brain problem in this case.

This severe brain problem is very common in the brains of murderers according to reliable biological research.

I did not expect to find it in this case. I had not even been thinking about it.

But I did find it in the archive yesterday.

I can now tell you that all the ripperologists, and of course all the people living in 1888 and in the past, who thought that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem, were right.

Best wishes, Pierre

Wait a minute........are you sure.....you concluded that the unprovoked killer and mutilators of several woman in Victorian London had mental problems?

Wow.

This really is ground breaking stuff.

[Elamarna]

Hi been out of circulation for a few days, now in Barbados.

What I find strange here is that Pierre has had a suspect since well before he began posting here. However it is only now that he has decided to check the death records and health records of this person.


I would suggest that this should have been one of the early bits of research needed to see if his man was physically capable of doing the crimes.


Pierre a direct question, did you find this info online or is it something you had to travel to physically view?


In addition I am somewhat baffled at your response to David's question which seemed a resonable one asking for clarification of your post.

I really fail to see how asking if you stumbled across this data while looking for something else is hard to answer.


Surely it's either yes or no?


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;393127]

Hi been out of circulation for a few days, now in Barbados.

What I find strange here is that Pierre has had a suspect since well before he began posting here. However it is only now that he has decided to check the death records and health records of this person.

Hi Steve,

If you find things I say "strange", fine. I am not interested in going into debate about how baffled people are ore how little they understand or how strange they find me, since it is only meaningless, time consuming and has nothing to do with the case. So we should leave all such talk aside. At least I do that.

Now, concearning your statement "it is only now that he has decided to check the death records and health records of this person.":

I have been very clear all the time about my method: I work exclusively with the inductive method in this case. I.e. I do not work with deduction, i.e. I do not presuppose a specific "type" before I find data connected to the Whitechapel murders. I do not presuppose, like ripperologists, that there is a specific type, a "mentally ill person" or a "lunatic" or someone who was staying at an asylum (where they mixed people with and without what we now call psychiatric diagnoses).

Therefore, I did not presuppose that there was a "mad" person, and that I should go and look among the "mad" persons for the Whitechapel killer. There are many reasons for why that it the wrong approach. If you want me to list some of them, let me know.

I would suggest that this should have been one of the early bits of research needed to see if his man was physically capable of doing the crimes.

No, Steve. That type of information might not have been in any source. And it is a juridical fact that serial killers are not always defined as having any psychiatric diagnosis or disease.

Pierre a direct question, did you find this info online or is it something you had to travel to physically view?

Why does it matter? If I went to the other side of the earth to find it, will it become more reliable? Will the original source be more correct?

In addition I am somewhat baffled at your response to David's question which seemed a resonable one asking for clarification of your post.

I really fail to see how asking if you stumbled across this data while looking for something else is hard to answer.

Surely it's either yes or no?

Let David ask his questions by himself, Steve. I seldom answer him, since he is only trying to destroy what I say.

And another thing: the question is meaningless. "Stumbled across the data"? Historians search for sources all the time. And we look for "something else" all the time. We find sources. And we find "something else".

And what does that mean? Nothing.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Thank you Pierre. When you say 'medical record/medical note', do you mean an original or facsimile copy of the subject's medical records? Is this, for example, a copy of a post-mortem report?

Thanks to you too for asking a meaningful question.

It is the original.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

This question wasn't answered Pierre and your failure to answer a simple question like this is making me suspicious.

Is "the archive" that you refer to, in fact, the British Newspaper Archive?

And is it, perhaps, a report of an inquest, or maybe an obituary, which provides this medical information?

No, David, it is not one of the above types of sources.

It is an original source in an archive.

[David Orsam]

No, David, it is not one of the above types of sources.

It is an original source in an archive.

Okay thank you Pierre, now can we get to the bottom of this issue by you answering the following questions which have still not been answered?

1. Why did you refer to this archive as "the archive" in #11?

2. When you were at this "archive", were you actively looking for information about your suspect?

3. When you found the medical record/medical note in this "archive", was it a complete surprise to you that such record/note existed because you had not been looking for it?

This is not, as you claim, me trying to "destroy" what you say. How can I possibly do this if what you say is true?

To be clear, the purpose of Qs 2 and 3 is to try and understand how you found the document in the archive when, as you tell us, you did not expect to find it in this case and "had not even been thinking about it." This was a question raised by Bridewell in #22 but not answered with any clarity by you in #23. The purpose of Q1 is to try and resolve a puzzle which I don't understand.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;393150]

Okay thank you Pierre, now can we get to the bottom of this issue by you answering the following questions which have still not been answered?

1. Why did you refer to this archive as "the archive" in #11?

It is an archive. Why do you construct a problem where there is no problem?

2. When you were at this "archive", were you actively looking for information about your suspect?

Historians always look "actively" for sources on whatever subject they study.

3. When you found the medical record/medical note in this "archive", was it a complete surprise to you that such record/note existed because you had not been looking for it?

"Complete surprise" is not an expression I use.

This is not, as you claim, me trying to "destroy" what you say. How can I possibly do this if what you say is true?

To be clear, the purpose of Qs 2 and 3 is to try and understand how you found the document in the archive when, as you tell us, you did not expect to find it in this case and "had not even been thinking about it." This was a question raised by Bridewell in #22 but not answered with any clarity by you in #23. The purpose of Q1 is to try and resolve a puzzle which I don't understand.

Why is it hard for you to understand that historians search in archives and find sources? That is what we do. A lot.

[David Orsam]

Well Pierre,

Question 1 has not been answered.

Question 2 has not been answered.

Question 3, surprise surprise, has not been answered, although at least you made a partial attempt at doing so.

Now to answer your silly question "Why is it hard for you to understand that historians search in archives and find sources?"

Before I do, let me say, yes Pierre we all understand that you are a historian and no-one else on this forum is, so I'm very grateful that you have given me a privileged glimpse into how a historian works.

But here's the thing. Medical records of Jack the Ripper suspects don't just appear out of nowhere in most archives. If it was a medical archive that would make some sense but then if it was a medical archive you must have been actively seeking medical information about your suspect so that it's not possible that you were "not thinking" about it. Do you see my confusion?

I suspect that you don't understand the point because you are not, in fact, a historian and you don't understand how historians do work and find information. If you disagree why not give us humble peasants a detailed explanation, in plain English, as to precisely how you found this medical record in that "archive"?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;393154]

Well Pierre,

Question 1 has not been answered.

Question 2 has not been answered.

Question 3, surprise surprise, has not been answered, although at least you made a partial attempt at doing so.

Now to answer your silly question "Why is it hard for you to understand that historians search in archives and find sources?"

Before I do, let me say, yes Pierre we all understand that you are a historian and no-one else on this forum is, so I'm very grateful that you have given me a privileged glimpse into how a historian works.

But here's the thing. Medical records of Jack the Ripper suspects don't just appear out of nowhere in most archives. If it was a medical archive that would make some sense but then if it was a medical archive you must have been actively seeking medical information about your suspect so that it's not possible that you were "not thinking" about it. Do you see my confusion?

No, David. I am searching for all existing sources in this case. I am not presupposing what to find. So when you do that, you sometimes find things you did not expect to find.

And again: Could you spare me your confessions about your "confusion"? It is off topic.

I suspect that you don't understand the point because you are not, in fact, a historian and you don't understand how historians do work and find information.

What?

If you disagree why not give us humble peasants a detailed explanation, in plain English, as to precisely how you found this medical record in that "archive"?

Here you go again. Trying to tell people that if they do not use the wordings of David and if they do not answer his specific questions - pointless ones - they are not "credible".

You are not interested in the solution of the case. You are only interested in keeping status quo.

[David Orsam]

ould you spare me your confessions about your "confusion"? It is off topic.
...

Here you go again. Trying to tell people that if they do not use the wordings of David and if they do not answer his specific questions - pointless ones - they are not "credible".

You are not interested in the solution of the case. You are only interested in keeping status quo.

The questions that I am asking you, Pierre, are directly on topic because this thread, which you started, is about the alleged discovery of an important historical document. I am trying to extract some information about the discovery of that document but you are failing to provide any. That is most certainly not how historians behave.

And I do not know what you mean about me only being interested in keeping the status quo and not being interested in a solution of the case. Had I said such a thing about you, you would undoubtedly have accused me of being "a liar".

So let me ask you this Pierre:

What is the solution to the case?

(your failure to answer will tell me everything I need to know)

[Pierre]

The questions that I am asking you, Pierre, are directly on topic because this thread, which you started, is about the alleged discovery of an important historical document. I am trying to extract some information about the discovery of that document but you are failing to provide any. That is most certainly not how historians behave.

And I do not know what you mean about me only being interested in keeping the status quo and not being interested in a solution of the case. Had I said such a thing about you, you would undoubtedly have accused me of being "a liar".

So let me ask you this Pierre:

What is the solution to the case?

(your failure to answer will tell me everything I need to know)

"your failure to answer will tell me everything I need to know"