Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Historical Lechmere

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

  • Historical Lechmere

    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
    Last edited by Pierre; 11-19-2016, 12:43 PM.

  • #2
    Pierre is rightly and essentially saying the idea of Lechmere as the Ripper is utter tosh.

    Comment


    • #3
      Congratulations Pierre on completing your first worth while post. Constructed well and well explained to simpletons like me.
      Very convincing hpot hypothanese bollocks idea 😁

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by paul g View Post
        Congratulations Pierre on completing your first worth while post. Constructed well and well explained to simpletons like me.
        Very convincing hpot hypothanese bollocks idea ��

        You will learn...

        Try to ask this genius why Stride and Eddows had been killed when Lechmere had a day off work near his mother's house..

        Or it was also within the 'system'

        Children...


        Rainbow°
        Last edited by Rainbow; 11-19-2016, 03:05 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
          You will learn...

          Try to ask this genius why Stride and Eddows had been killed when Lechmere had a day off work near his mother's house..

          Or it was also within the 'system'

          Children...


          Rainbow°
          rainbow

          I think you will find he as an answer to why two that day



          Steve

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            rainbow

            I think you will find he as an answer to why two that day



            Steve

            NO. You maybe hope so, but no, he has only Tautologies



            Rainbow°

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
              Try to ask this genius why Stride and Eddows had been killed when Lechmere had a day off work
              Did he? And what does that prove?

              Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
              near his mother's house..
              Wasn't her house a mile away from Mitre Square?

              And what's the implication? That Lechmere popped into his mother's place with his bloodstained clothes and offal?

              Comment


              • #8
                since you have separated my sentence, then you will never ever get the idea Harry

                Or maybe you just don't want to.


                Rainbow°

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
                  You will learn...

                  Try to ask this genius why Stride and Eddows had been killed when Lechmere had a day off work near his mother's house..

                  Or it was also within the 'system'

                  Children...


                  Rainbow°
                  Wow, you know his work days.... do you also know what name he used at his workplace?
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
                    NO. You maybe hope so, but no, he has only Tautologies



                    Rainbow°
                    why would i hope so?

                    I hardly ever agree with anything Pierre posts.



                    S

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                      why would i hope so?

                      I hardly ever agree with anything Pierre posts.



                      S
                      I am not sure my English would help me explaining to a man who can speak his mother language fluently and happily like you, put I hope Your English may help You reading that post and finding where he did have any answer about the two killings that happened on sunday near Lechmeres mother's house ..



                      Rainbow°

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
                        I am not sure my English would help me explaining to a man who can speak his mother language fluently and happily like you, put I hope Your English may help You reading that post and finding where he did have any answer about the two killings that happened on sunday near Lechmeres mother's house ..



                        Rainbow°
                        Rainbow,

                        he has not said, however he has said that he has an answer for the double killings so i guess you will have to wait like the rest of us to find out, or get bored waiting.

                        we have been waiting for over a year todate!



                        Steve
                        Last edited by Elamarna; 11-19-2016, 05:41 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                          rainbow

                          I think you will find he as an answer to why two that day

                          Steve
                          Thank you, Steve. You are the only person in this forum who makes me take this case forward.

                          I do not want to sound cryptical.

                          But the thing is, you sometimes say very intelligent things which makes me understand details in the case that I have not understood before.

                          Best wishes, Pierre

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            For God´s sake, Steve, keep at it. You have a LOT of work before you.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              For God´s sake, Steve, keep at it. You have a LOT of work before you.
                              He doesn´t. He is the best and most critical thinker here.

                              You, on the other hand, have big problems with your theory. Many of them have been critically discussed by Steve.

                              I have also been strongly criticized by Steve. I do appreciate this. It helps me. It takes the case forward.

                              Now, there is a whole chain of motive explanations, causal explanations and functional explanations for the murders in 1888-1889, from Nichols to McKenzie. The motive explanations are strong and detailed and tightly connected to the two other types of explanations in this historical chain.

                              I will do my best now to break it.


                              I can also tell you, Fisherman, that the problems of the double event are fully solved.

                              Regards, Pierre
                              Last edited by Pierre; 11-20-2016, 03:56 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X