Tweet
Historical Lechmere is a social construct like any other historical subject or object. It is induced from sources concearning the life of Lechmere and it is deduced from external sources about serial killers.
Every suspect called Jack the Ripper is a social construction. Some of those are made through the use of historical methods and some not. The use of historical methods when constructing Jack the Ripper are very often unscientific or absent.
Fisherman has tried to construct a history about Lechmere and here I will point out how he has done it from the point of view of historic methodology. I will write very short and clear.
The reason for Lechmere as the example is the use of empirical sources, data, in a way that clearly points out the possibilities and problems with historical methodology.
How is the historical Lechmere constructed?
A) There are three types of accepted explanations in historic methodology: the causal explanation, the motive explanation and the functional explanation.
1. The causal explanation = A caused B. Lechmere caused the death of Polly Nichols.
Possibility: Postulating a series of events but WITHOUT EXPLAINING THEM (yes, and still it is called an "explanation"!). So you can construct a chronology without any explanation:
If A > B. Lechmere was standing beside Polly Nichols > Lechmere killed Polly Nichols.
Problem: The causal explanation does not explain WHY. This problem is something that Fisherman har dealt with in his own way as we will see (and as many of you know)
2. The motive explanation = A was caused by B because X had a motive for causing B: X had an intention, X had a purpose, a motive. This explanation is directed forwards: towards a goal.
Possibility: Adding a motive adds power to the explanation on an individual level. Now, look at this:
"Lechmere killed Polly Nichols because he had moved away from his mother."
Is this a motive explanation?
No. It is A > B. It is a causal explanation, not an individual motive explanation. It only says that Lechmere moved and then he killed Polly Nichols.
To be able to add the very important motive explanation, Fisherman tries to add this - without any source for it:
His mother was domineering.
Then he has constructed the "explanatory chain":
A mother was domineering > a mother remarried > the son much later moved from the mother > the son killed Polly Nichols.
This is the explanatory chain for understanding why (WHY!) Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.
In that chain there is no motive explanation. It does not express an intent, a purpose, a motive. It is not directed forwards. It is only a chain of causal explanations. It only shows events in the past of Lechmere.
Fisherman has discovered the weakness of the chain. Therefore he also deduces from modern / postmodern theories about "psychopathy".
A mother was domineering > a mother remarried > the son became a psychopath > the son much later moved from the mother > the son killed Polly Nichols.
Possibility: He was "mad" and therefore he was Jack the Ripper. But this is not a motive explanation! "I plan to kill you now, because I am mad. My motive is being mad."
It is just another causal explanation used as an ad hoc in the chain.
Conclusion: Historical Lechmere has no historical motive to kill.
3. The functional explanation = A is part of a big system. A is needed in the system. It has a function in this system.
Fisherman tries to use this explanation:
Possibility: Lechmere had a geographical system. He went to work through areas where victims were found. Nichols was found "in the system". Therefore, the murder of Nichols is a function of Lechmere!
Problem: Tautologies. Lechmere had a system. It was the system of his routes to work. In that system, Nichols was killed. The system is depending on the routes to work, the routes to work makes up the system.
Fisherman also tries to explain the behaviour of Lechmere at the inquest.
Behaviour 1: Lechmere used his name Cross.
Behaviour 2: Lechmere lied to Mizen.
1 and 2 are built on the previous chain of explanations:
A mother was domineering > a mother remarried > the son became a psychopath > the son much later moved from the mother > the son killed Polly Nichols.
Therefore: 1 and 2. But 1 and 2 depends on a chain without motive explanations, a chain of pure events, even events without sources, and without explanations!
Conclusion about historical Lechmere:
Historical Lechmere is constructed by using only causal explanations. There is no use of motive explanations. One functional explanation is used. It is tautological.
The chain of events used by Fisherman to lead Lechmere from a position of being a son of a domineering mother to being a serial killer is broken in two steps:
1: There are no sources for the mother being domineering.
2: There are no sources for the son being a psychopath.
And the whole theory depends on these element in the chain of causal explanations without any motives.
The attempt to explain the behaviour of Lechmere at the inquest is based on this broken chain.
There is no valid history for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper in the past. There is only a poor history about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper. This history is not scientific.
I do sincerely apologize for showing you this. I am truly sorry, Fisherman.
Kind regards, Pierre
Every suspect called Jack the Ripper is a social construction. Some of those are made through the use of historical methods and some not. The use of historical methods when constructing Jack the Ripper are very often unscientific or absent.
Fisherman has tried to construct a history about Lechmere and here I will point out how he has done it from the point of view of historic methodology. I will write very short and clear.
The reason for Lechmere as the example is the use of empirical sources, data, in a way that clearly points out the possibilities and problems with historical methodology.
How is the historical Lechmere constructed?
A) There are three types of accepted explanations in historic methodology: the causal explanation, the motive explanation and the functional explanation.
1. The causal explanation = A caused B. Lechmere caused the death of Polly Nichols.
Possibility: Postulating a series of events but WITHOUT EXPLAINING THEM (yes, and still it is called an "explanation"!). So you can construct a chronology without any explanation:
If A > B. Lechmere was standing beside Polly Nichols > Lechmere killed Polly Nichols.
Problem: The causal explanation does not explain WHY. This problem is something that Fisherman har dealt with in his own way as we will see (and as many of you know)
2. The motive explanation = A was caused by B because X had a motive for causing B: X had an intention, X had a purpose, a motive. This explanation is directed forwards: towards a goal.
Possibility: Adding a motive adds power to the explanation on an individual level. Now, look at this:
"Lechmere killed Polly Nichols because he had moved away from his mother."
Is this a motive explanation?
No. It is A > B. It is a causal explanation, not an individual motive explanation. It only says that Lechmere moved and then he killed Polly Nichols.
To be able to add the very important motive explanation, Fisherman tries to add this - without any source for it:
His mother was domineering.
Then he has constructed the "explanatory chain":
A mother was domineering > a mother remarried > the son much later moved from the mother > the son killed Polly Nichols.
This is the explanatory chain for understanding why (WHY!) Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.
In that chain there is no motive explanation. It does not express an intent, a purpose, a motive. It is not directed forwards. It is only a chain of causal explanations. It only shows events in the past of Lechmere.
Fisherman has discovered the weakness of the chain. Therefore he also deduces from modern / postmodern theories about "psychopathy".
A mother was domineering > a mother remarried > the son became a psychopath > the son much later moved from the mother > the son killed Polly Nichols.
Possibility: He was "mad" and therefore he was Jack the Ripper. But this is not a motive explanation! "I plan to kill you now, because I am mad. My motive is being mad."
It is just another causal explanation used as an ad hoc in the chain.
Conclusion: Historical Lechmere has no historical motive to kill.
3. The functional explanation = A is part of a big system. A is needed in the system. It has a function in this system.
Fisherman tries to use this explanation:
Possibility: Lechmere had a geographical system. He went to work through areas where victims were found. Nichols was found "in the system". Therefore, the murder of Nichols is a function of Lechmere!
Problem: Tautologies. Lechmere had a system. It was the system of his routes to work. In that system, Nichols was killed. The system is depending on the routes to work, the routes to work makes up the system.
Fisherman also tries to explain the behaviour of Lechmere at the inquest.
Behaviour 1: Lechmere used his name Cross.
Behaviour 2: Lechmere lied to Mizen.
1 and 2 are built on the previous chain of explanations:
A mother was domineering > a mother remarried > the son became a psychopath > the son much later moved from the mother > the son killed Polly Nichols.
Therefore: 1 and 2. But 1 and 2 depends on a chain without motive explanations, a chain of pure events, even events without sources, and without explanations!
Conclusion about historical Lechmere:
Historical Lechmere is constructed by using only causal explanations. There is no use of motive explanations. One functional explanation is used. It is tautological.
The chain of events used by Fisherman to lead Lechmere from a position of being a son of a domineering mother to being a serial killer is broken in two steps:
1: There are no sources for the mother being domineering.
2: There are no sources for the son being a psychopath.
And the whole theory depends on these element in the chain of causal explanations without any motives.
The attempt to explain the behaviour of Lechmere at the inquest is based on this broken chain.
There is no valid history for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper in the past. There is only a poor history about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper. This history is not scientific.
I do sincerely apologize for showing you this. I am truly sorry, Fisherman.
Kind regards, Pierre
Comment