The Lechmere/Cross sources

[Pierre]

Pierre, you seem to be criticising Fisherman for using newspaper reports of the inquest but yesterday you posted in another thread about your own use of newspapers:

"In the case of absence of original inquest papers and primary sources produced by the police, as you see, we have no choice. "

It's exactly the same for Fisherman as it is for you when you rely on newspaper reports. There is no choice. So why even bother making the point?

And you need to get it into your head that newspapers contain more information about what happened at the inquests than the original inquest papers.

Hi David,

It is nothing radical with the notion that newspaper articles are problematical sources. It is actually something we all must consider. And naturally I must consider this, and that is why I wrote that sometimes we have no choice but to try and understand and describe the past through the use of newspaper articles. We might still use an article, but are obliged to consider if it has a tendency or other problems.

BUT: the problem becomes worse when a lot of problematical newspapers are being used to establish "facts" about very important things, i.e. when the researcher using these sources is trying to argue for a high level of substantial significance.

I do believe that Fisherman is trying to do that, since he is using many details and even trying to establish a chronology by minutes by using newspapers, which are not reliable. So the substantial significance is low, but by establishing many "facts" in detail, he tries to argue for a high substantial significance.

Another example is that Fisherman is trying to establish as a fact the position of Lechmere in Buck´s Row. I might be wrong, but I think there is only newspaper material for that idea. And when that material has a tendency, it is not sufficient for establishing facts.

So this is a serious problem, since there are people in the past who gets pointed out as having been a serial killer, although the sources do not suffice to draw that conclusion. And I often struggle with this problem myself and when I do, I always think that it is better to discard a problematical source than to put forward a dead person as being a serial killer.

You must have some reliable sources to be able to even think that you have a good hypothesis, and for a theory you must have even more sources, and they should be as reliable as possible. If there are problematical sources, they can not be allowed to be the base on which you build the theory.

So I think it is better if people do not name dead persons in the past until they have all the sources that are needed for a conclusive establishing of facts.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi David,

It is nothing radical with the notion that newspaper articles are problematical sources. It is actually something we all must consider. And naturally I must consider this, and that is why I wrote that sometimes we have no choice but to try and understand and describe the past through the use of newspaper articles. We might still use an article, but are obliged to consider if it has a tendency or other problems.

BUT: the problem becomes worse when a lot of problematical newspapers are being used to establish "facts" about very important things, i.e. when the researcher using these sources is trying to argue for a high level of substantial significance.

I do believe that Fisherman is trying to do that, since he is using many details and even trying to establish a chronology by minutes by using newspapers, which are not reliable. So the substantial significance is low, but by establishing many "facts" in detail, he tries to argue for a high substantial significance.

Another example is that Fisherman is trying to establish as a fact the position of Lechmere in Buck´s Row. I might be wrong, but I think there is only newspaper material for that idea. And when that material has a tendency, it is not sufficient for establishing facts.

So this is a serious problem, since there are people in the past who gets pointed out as having been a serial killer, although the sources do not suffice to draw that conclusion. And I often struggle with this problem myself and when I do, I always think that it is better to discard a problematical source than to put forward a dead person as being a serial killer.

You must have some reliable sources to be able to even think that you have a good hypothesis, and for a theory you must have even more sources, and they should be as reliable as possible. If there are problematical sources, they can not be allowed to be the base on which you build the theory.

So I think it is better if people do not name dead persons in the past until they have all the sources that are needed for a conclusive establishing of facts.

Kind regards, Pierre

I´m relieved to say that I am in plentyful company - there are hundreds of us who have gone public with suspects without being able to be conclusive.

I think you are going to have to live with that. Most people do. It is an important and useful niche of Ripperology even, since it focuses on singled out people who are scrutinized from the perspective of a potential killership (just invented that term).

And while you are at it (living with it), I may as well say that factually and evidencewise, much as there is nothing conclusive to nail Lechmere, my take on things is that there is MORE on him than on anybody else. Much enough to warrant a trial, even - or so I am told.

PS. So your own secret suspect is done for now, I take it?

[David Orsam]

It is nothing radical with the notion that newspaper articles are problematical sources. It is actually something we all must consider. And naturally I must consider this, and that is why I wrote that sometimes we have no choice but to try and understand and describe the past through the use of newspaper articles. We might still use an article, but are obliged to consider if it has a tendency or other problems.

BUT: the problem becomes worse when a lot of problematical newspapers are being used to establish "facts" about very important things, i.e. when the researcher using these sources is trying to argue for a high level of substantial significance.

I do believe that Fisherman is trying to do that, since he is using many details and even trying to establish a chronology by minutes by using newspapers, which are not reliable. So the substantial significance is low, but by establishing many "facts" in detail, he tries to argue for a high substantial significance.

Another example is that Fisherman is trying to establish as a fact the position of Lechmere in Buck´s Row. I might be wrong, but I think there is only newspaper material for that idea. And when that material has a tendency, it is not sufficient for establishing facts.

You haven't responded to my post, Pierre. My post was not about "newspaper articles" in general. It was specifically about newspaper reports of inquest proceedings. I was picking up on your own comment to Fisherman that "you use newspaper reports for the inquest, since the inquest sources are not available. Newspapers are often of low reliability."

The point I was making was threefold:

1. As you accept, for some inquests, newspapers are the only sources available (and, of course, we have a number of different reports for corroboration).

2. You, yourself, use newspaper reports of inquest proceedings when official papers are not available.

3. Newspaper reports usually carry more information than can be found in official inquest papers.

[Fisherman]

I could of course criticize Pierre for saying a number of things about me and my efforts, but I have decided that it is not worth the time (sorry, Pierre).

One example only - Pierre says that I am "trying to establish as a fact the position of Lechmere in Bucks Row."

I am not.

This is the kind of reason I have for letting all of this pass uncommented on.

[Templarkommando]

Pierre,
You seem to have missed my earlier post, so I assume you either missed it, or are mulling your answer over for a while. Since that may be the case, allow me to explain what I'm getting at.

In logic, a general premise is not necessarily sufficient to reach a conclusion. So, for example, if we start with the premise that "most swans are white," we might be justified in suspecting that any given swan may be white, but that would not be absolutely true for every swan. We might find ourselves in Australia in the company of black swans, and then our general premise would prove insufficient to describe the black swans that we now find ourselves with.

So, when you say that the Daily Telegraph's report on the Nichols Inquest is unreliable because it is from a newspaper, you may be very right that many newspapers generally may provide unreliable information, but that is not sufficient to show that the particular article that we are reading is unreliable. Therefore, the burden of proof would seem to be with the person making the assertion that a particular article is unreliable.

Thanks again,
Templarkommando

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Your use of the word "tendency" does not correspond to how it is normally used in the English language where one usually refers to "a tendency to or towards" something. I note that the Wikipedia reference for the use of this word is to a book published in Stockholm entitled "Källkritik". Therefore I am concerned that whatever Swedish word in the original book was used has been wrongly or badly translated by whoever wrote the Wikipedia article. Can you refer me to any published work by a suitably qualified historian in the English language which uses the word "tendency" in the way you have used it on this forum? I mean, if what you are doing is bog-standard academic historical analysis then you should be able to cite absolutely loads of books by "academic historians" which refer to the "tendency of a source" or "the tendency of the witness", right?

You can not use the common sense conceptualization for an academic concept. Tendency is a concept within source criticism and is a concept used together with text analysis. Here you have some literature if you really are interested:

Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing.
Anthony Brundage. (Harlan Davidson, 2002)

The archaeology of knowledge.
Michel Foucault. (Routledge, 2002)

On "What Is History?": From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White.
Keith Jenkins. (Routledge, 1995)

Methods of critical discourse studies.
Michael Meyer, Ruth Wodak. (SAGE, 2016).

[David Orsam]

You can not use the common sense conceptualization for an academic concept. Tendency as a concept within source criticism and is connected to text analysis. Here you have some literature if you really are interested:

Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing.
Anthony Brundage. (Harlan Davidson, 2002)

The archaeology of knowledge.
Michel Foucault. (Routledge, 2002)

On "What Is History?": From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White.
Keith Jenkins. (Routledge, 1995)

Methods of critical discourse studies.
Michael Meyer, Ruth Wodak. (SAGE, 2016).

I don't think I made myself clear Pierre. I'm not interested in books about historical method. I want to be referred to academic books about history itself. Not the method of history, or critical discourse or historical sources or the archeology of knowledge. History itself. A proper history book. I want to see practical demonstrations of the use of the word "tendency" in a serious work relating to any period of history.

Are you aware of any?

[Pierre]

I´m relieved to say that I am in plentyful company - there are hundreds of us who have gone public with suspects without being able to be conclusive.

I think you are going to have to live with that. Most people do. It is an important and useful niche of Ripperology even, since it focuses on singled out people who are scrutinized from the perspective of a potential killership (just invented that term).

And while you are at it (living with it), I may as well say that factually and evidencewise, much as there is nothing conclusive to nail Lechmere, my take on things is that there is MORE on him than on anybody else. Much enough to warrant a trial, even - or so I am told.

PS. So your own secret suspect is done for now, I take it?

Hi Fisherman,

Firstly, you did not respond to my post about your sources so I guess I am correct in saying that those sources are what you have.

Secondly, if there is more on Lechmere than on anyone else, that is just because there is really nothing on anyone else.

Thirdly, you write: "there is nothing conclusive to nail Lechmere".

That is, actually, a statement that I think you should try to live with, if you can not find better sources.

I myself can not live with such a statement so I have other strategies.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I don't think I made myself clear Pierre. I'm not interested in books about historical method. I want to be referred to academic books about history itself. Not the method of history, or critical discourse or historical sources or the archeology of knowledge. History itself. A proper history book. I want to see practical demonstrations of the use of the word "tendency" in a serious work relating to any period of history.

Are you aware of any?

Do you mean some practice books for English undergraduate students?

If you are in England, the easiest way for you is to go to your nearest library or preferably your university and look on the shelves where the history books are.

And to learn about tendency you need to read everything within historical methods to understand it. Use the list I gave you.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Firstly, you did not respond to my post about your sources so I guess I am correct in saying that those sources are what you have.

Secondly, if there is more on Lechmere than on anyone else, that is just because there is really nothing on anyone else.

Thirdly, you write: "there is nothing conclusive to nail Lechmere".

That is, actually, a statement that I think you should try to live with, if you can not find better sources.

I myself can not live with such a statement so I have other strategies.

Regards, Pierre

My not answering to your posts should not be taken as confirmation of you being correct. I am just not wasting any time quibbling with you over uninteresting matters.

I have been living with the fact that there is nothing conclusive to nail Lechmere for years now. Nothing has changed. The accumulation of circumstantial evidence is what makes the case.

[David Orsam]

Do you mean some practice books for English undergraduate students?

No, of course not, Pierre. I want you to identify a proper, published, work of history written by a serious historian, ideally a professor of history, which contains references to "tendencies" in support of whatever arguments are being made. You know that thing that historians do? They publish books for the world to read about history.

I want to see a proper historian use the word and concept of "tendency" in the way that you have used it in multiple posts on this forum.

I suspect that you cannot identify any because, as far as I am aware, no serious historian would ever do use the expressions "tendency of a source", "tendency of a witness" etc.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Templarkommando;377113]

Pierre,
You seem to have missed my earlier post, so I assume you either missed it, or are mulling your answer over for a while. Since that may be the case, allow me to explain what I'm getting at.

Hi Templarcommando,

Yes, I did miss your post. Thanks for posting again.

In logic, a general premise is not necessarily sufficient to reach a conclusion. So, for example, if we start with the premise that "most swans are white," we might be justified in suspecting that any given swan may be white, but that would not be absolutely true for every swan. We might find ourselves in Australia in the company of black swans, and then our general premise would prove insufficient to describe the black swans that we now find ourselves with.

Well, you see, I do not use logic and I have never studied logic. I am an historian and sociologist. So I do not use pure logic and the logical systems.

So, when you say that the Daily Telegraph's report on the Nichols Inquest is unreliable because it is from a newspaper, you may be very right that many newspapers generally may provide unreliable information, but that is not sufficient to show that the particular article that we are reading is unreliable. Therefore, the burden of proof would seem to be with the person making the assertion that a particular article is unreliable.

No, I said that newspapers are often of low reliability. And if I say that the Daily Telegraph´s report was not reliable, I would not say that because I believe I can deduct such an idea from all newspapers to one newspaper by pure logic. I would say it because our empirical studies of newspapers often show us that articles are not reliable.

Thanks again,
Templarkommando

Thanks for your comments.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

No, of course not, Pierre. I want you to identify a proper, published, work of history written by a serious historian, ideally a professor of history, which contains references to "tendencies" in support of whatever arguments are being made. You know that thing that historians do? They publish books for the world to read about history.

I want to see a proper historian use the word and concept of "tendency" in the way that you have used it in multiple posts on this forum.

I suspect that you cannot identify any because, as far as I am aware, no serious historian would ever do use the expressions "tendency of a source", "tendency of a witness" etc.

OK, David. You are only here to destroy everything I say. That is you only interest and that is the only reason you are asking me for literature, since you are not even the slightest interested in the literature I recommend to you.

I can not teach you and make you an historian, you will have to go to a university and read the literature and do all the work.

Do not "suspect" me, and do not imply that I am not a "serious historian" and so on and so forth.

I gave you a list of serious literature and you are being ridiculing and belittling.

You destroy this thread, which is a thread about the sources that Fisherman is using. You are not contributing but you are rude and time consuming.

Time and time again, you do this. You destroy my threads. That is you only purpose for even discussing with me.

[John G]

You can not use the common sense conceptualization for an academic concept. Tendency is a concept within source criticism and is a concept used together with text analysis. Here you have some literature if you really are interested:

Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing.
Anthony Brundage. (Harlan Davidson, 2002)

The archaeology of knowledge.
Michel Foucault. (Routledge, 2002)

On "What Is History?": From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White.
Keith Jenkins. (Routledge, 1995)

Methods of critical discourse studies.
Michael Meyer, Ruth Wodak. (SAGE, 2016).

Hello Pierre,

At least two of the authors you cite are postmodernists, whose view of history is radically different to that of, say, the traditional historian. Thus, isn't it the case that the postmodernist approach ranges from nihilism to using the imagination to reconstruct historical events, i.e. on the basis that the past is inaccessible and therefore history is mainly fiction?

In fact, Foucault himself once said, "I am well aware that I have never written anything but fictions""

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;377120]

My not answering to your posts should not be taken as confirmation of you being correct. I am just not wasting any time quibbling with you over uninteresting matters.

Could you please tell me if there is any other source that you use, except for the three I have analysed, which is a good primary source?

I have been living with the fact that there is nothing conclusive to nail Lechmere for years now. Nothing has changed. The accumulation of circumstantial evidence is what makes the case.

I see. But I do not really understand this. Do you really believe that the sources for the circumstantial evidence are enough to conclude that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper?

Because that is your conclusion. So therefore, you should believe that the "evidence" from the sources is conclusive?

Because you could conclude something else. Your conclusion could be that Lechmere killed Nichols but not the others.

Why this "grand" conclusion from so small "evidence"? Why not a smaller conclusion?

Regards, Pierre