Historical Lechmere

[Pierre]

[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

[Pierre]

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.

[ChrisGeorge]

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

[Henry Flower]

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'?

[Fisherman]

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.

[Pierre]

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.

[Pierre]

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 haven´t solved the case, since the sources are so problematical.

[Henry Flower]

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.

[Pierre]

[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.

[Henry Flower]

"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.

[Pierre]

[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

[Henry Flower]

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.

[The Baron]

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

That was a great post of Pierre!




The Baron