Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Historical Lechmere

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

  • #31
    [QUOTE=Fisherman;401112]

    The whole idea that we should look for motives is quite ridiculous, I agree.
    This makes it absolutely clear that you:

    1) Do not understand the discipline of history
    2) Speak against your own attempts to explain the behaviour of Lechmere at the inquest where you postulate motives for using the name Cross and for the so called "Mizen scam"

    How sad.

    P

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
      Well since not everybody agrees as to the number of victims there were for JTR, it's not necessarily correct to say that there "had" to be a target at 1 or 5, no matter what a certain Police official may have written.

      What was Joe Barnet's motive to murder Kelly anyway - as far as I know they weren't wed so he was already free to marry again if he wished (and in some departments it is said he did so to Mary Ann Cox??). As you say, anyway, that's a different thread.

      What was Charles Cross's motive for murdering Polly (and was there ever any proof, or hint, that he was insane)?
      Yes, indeed. For a history about Barnett or Cross being Jack the Ripper, the historian must present a motive.

      For ripperology, there is no need for presenting a motive.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        Yes, indeed. For a history about Barnett or Cross being Jack the Ripper, the historian must present a motive.

        For ripperology, there is no need for presenting a motive.
        Hello Pierre

        You write: "For ripperology, there is no need for presenting a motive."

        Actually, I concur with your view. Ripperology shades into fantasy and always has. In 1888, the factual real life Jack the Ripper stepped off the bloody streets of the East End and into the world of fiction almost immediately. At this point, Jack the Ripper can be anybody you want him (or her) to be.

        Best regards

        Chris
        Christopher T. George
        Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
        just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
        For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
        RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

        Comment


        • #34
          Pierre. A hypothetical question:

          What if a historian finds data which he or she believes conclusively settles the question of the Whitechapel Killer's identity, data that demonstrates the suspect's presence at all 5 canonical scenes of crime and contains elements of detailed and unquestioned confession, for example,

          - but -

          the data does not provide any evidence of motive?

          What is the duty of the great historian in that instance? Is that he 'must present a motive' and so should invent one, or is it that he should have the integrity to say 'this new source proves the identity of the Ripper but leaves us with no clue as to his motives'?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
            Pierre. A hypothetical question:

            What if a historian finds data which he or she believes conclusively settles the question of the Whitechapel Killer's identity, data that demonstrates the suspect's presence at all 5 canonical scenes of crime and contains elements of detailed and unquestioned confession, for example,

            - but -

            the data does not provide any evidence of motive?

            What is the duty of the great historian in that instance? Is that he 'must present a motive' and so should invent one, or is it that he should have the integrity to say 'this new source proves the identity of the Ripper but leaves us with no clue as to his motives'?
            I guess that such a man would first want to conclusively prove the identity of the Ripper, and then he would realize that he would afterwards stand there shamed by not having understood the discipline of history.

            Quite a debacle, thus, and certainly an embarrasment that would stop any discerning Ripperologist from putting an end to the Ripper enigma.

            Ehrm.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
              Pierre. A hypothetical question:

              What if a historian finds data which he or she believes conclusively settles the question of the Whitechapel Killer's identity, data that demonstrates the suspect's presence at all 5 canonical scenes of crime and contains elements of detailed and unquestioned confession, for example,

              - but -

              the data does not provide any evidence of motive?

              What is the duty of the great historian in that instance? Is that he 'must present a motive' and so should invent one, or is it that he should have the integrity to say 'this new source proves the identity of the Ripper but leaves us with no clue as to his motives'?
              Motives are not to be invented.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                I guess that such a man would first want to conclusively prove the identity of the Ripper, and then he would realize that he would afterwards stand there shamed by not having understood the discipline of history.

                Quite a debacle, thus, and certainly an embarrasment that would stop any discerning Ripperologist from putting an end to the Ripper enigma.

                Ehrm.
                People who research Jack the Ripper should not be shamed if they havenīt solved the case, since the sources are so problematical.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  Motives are not to be invented.
                  Quite so Pierre, but you are avoiding the question. Is it not entirely possible that a historian could discover definitive proof of the man's identity without discovering a motive? Of course it is. And therefore your latest prescription - that a historian, unlike a ripperologist, is obligated to provide a motive - is clearly absolute nonsense.

                  Absolute nonsense.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    [QUOTE=Henry Flower;401173]
                    Quite so Pierre, but you are avoiding the question.
                    No.

                    Is it not entirely possible that a historian could discover definitive proof of the man's identity without discovering a motive?

                    No. History shows that it has not been possible. So I can not postulate the impossible and say that something which did not happen happened and therefore was possible.

                    Of course it is.
                    Where? Who did it? And when?

                    And therefore your latest prescription - that a historian, unlike a ripperologist, is obligated to provide a motive - is clearly absolute nonsense.
                    And therefore there is no therefore.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      "No. History shows that it has not been possible. So I can not postulate the impossible and say that something which did not happen happened and therefore was possible."

                      Your logic is simply abysmal Pierre. Look:

                      No. History shows that it has not been possible.

                      True but incomplete: History shows that it has not yet been possible.

                      So I can not postulate the impossible

                      There is no impossibility. Just because something has not yet happened does not make it impossible, and we are allowed to hypothesize. This is infantile reasoning, Pierre. Before you came along and solved the case "History showed that it had not been possible" to solve it. That did not mean that it was impossible, it just hadn't happened yet.

                      and say that something which did not happen happened and therefore was possible.

                      So are you really saying that anything that has not yet happened is actually impossible? Things that have not yet happened are literally impossible and can therefore never happen?

                      Of course you don't believe that. You are many things, but you are probably not entirely stupid. It's just another example of the contortions into which you will pathetically twist yourself in order to avoid engaging with a simple and perfectly possible hypothetical scenario which demonstrated that your latest pompous edicts were in fact fundamentally illogical and incorrect.

                      One day you'll maybe learn that mature people admit mistakes, cheerfully. It's the mark of a juvenile to tie themselves in knots in order to avoid admitting they were simply wrong.

                      What an *******. Grow up.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        [QUOTE=Henry Flower;401215]

                        "No. History shows that it has not been possible. So I can not postulate the impossible and say that something which did not happen happened and therefore was possible."

                        Your logic is simply abysmal Pierre. Look:

                        No. History shows that it has not been possible.

                        True but incomplete: History shows that it has not yet been possible.

                        So I can not postulate the impossible

                        There is no impossibility. Just because something has not yet happened does not make it impossible, and we are allowed to hypothesize. This is infantile reasoning, Pierre. Before you came along and solved the case "History showed that it had not been possible" to solve it. That did not mean that it was impossible, it just hadn't happened yet.

                        and say that something which did not happen happened and therefore was possible.

                        So are you really saying that anything that has not yet happened is actually impossible? Things that have not yet happened are literally impossible and can therefore never happen?
                        You try to make a total generalization from my statement that:

                        History shows that it has not been possible (to discover definitive proof of the man's identity without discovering a motive).

                        You can not use this particular fact to make total generalizations about "things that have not yet happened", since

                        1. this statement is a statement about the particular historical case of Jack the Ripper. It therefore says nothing about "things...".

                        2. It is an historical fact that the case is not yet solved.

                        3. It is an historical methodological fact that the motive explanation is a criterion for writing idiographic history about individuals.

                        4. Without such an explanation a history about Jack the Ripper will not be written. Other histories may be written, but not a history which explains why someone was a killer.

                        5. What you will have instead are causal explanations and functional explanations. Read my post about the problems inherit in these two types of explanations and you may realize what sort of history they are sufficient for.

                        Of course you don't believe that. You are many things, but you are probably not entirely stupid.
                        And you, what are you? Are you a judge of what people are? In what position?

                        It's just another example of the contortions into which you will pathetically
                        Using the word "pathetically" will not help you.

                        twist yourself
                        As you may see, there are strong reasons for demanding that idiographic history has a motive explanation. As you may see also, I am not "twisting" myself, but centuries of historians have known this, whereas you do not understand it but still believe that you know better than the historians.

                        in order to avoid engaging with a simple and perfectly possible hypothetical scenario which demonstrated that your latest pompous edicts were in fact fundamentally illogical and incorrect.
                        The "pompous edicts" is plain simple historical method.

                        One day you'll maybe learn that mature people admit mistakes, cheerfully. It's the mark of a juvenile to tie themselves in knots in order to avoid admitting they were simply wrong.
                        The judge again, now postulating the two groups "mature people" and "juvenile(s)". The first group is of course yours, the second mine.

                        I am not interested in those groups in any other way than as a sociologist, noting that you use symbolic violence when you are not capable of understanding ordinary historical methods.

                        I would really appreciate it if you could consider the fact that just because you know nothing about history, it does not mean that historical methods do not exist.

                        What an *******. Grow up.
                        ?

                        Regards, Pierre

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Sorry Pierre, I started to read but your prose is so mind-numbing I actually stopped reading about a third of the way through.

                          Until you share your suspect, motive, and sources I see little point in you.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X