Specific

[Bridewell]

Its only hotly debated by people who believe Richardson and Cadosche liars. There was someone alive on the spot where Annie dies around 5:15am, Cadosches statement is definitive on this point.

Cadosch is definite as to the time - but is wrong if Elizabeth Long is right. One of them has to be mistaken, in whole or in part (as the coroner said must be the case). I'm just not sure which.

[Bridewell]

Just for the slow ones at the back.... erm how can you know someone can read or write (or anything) if you do know not who the person is you are referring to?

But Pierre thinks that he does - just won't say who or why he thinks that.

[Geddy2112]

Just for the slow ones at the back.... erm how can you know someone can read or write (or anything) if you do know not who the person is you are referring to?

[Michael W Richards]

Why does it matter?

Regards, Pierre

There are a number of reasons why that timing is important. Perhaps most importantly, with respect to witness reliability.

[MsWeatherwax]

I MsWeatherwax.

[GUT]

'We' don't have to remember anything - you may suggest that we consider facts as social constructions if you wish, but I doubt that you're going to gain much traction with that here. This argument is the last bastion of the desperate, Pierre. You might as well say 'whatever is presented to me, I will twist in a manner to suit me because there is a philosophical argument that a fact is not a fact. Therefore, I can make any scenario correct'.

But isn't that what he always does, twist everything to suit.

If you choose to attempt to solve a century old murder on the basis that a fact is a 'social construction', Pierre, be my guest. I have no idea how you think you're going to present your research at this stage, but I hope for your sake that you're not considering any attempt to publish. All you have done thus far is create increasingly esoteric and bizarre threads, made very little sense and (it would appear to me) use some of the very knowledgeable contributors here as a short cut for your own research. To add insult to injury, having asked questions and posed theories, you have gone on to be rude, insulting and patronising to the people who have answered your questions.

Seems to sum it up perfectly.

As an academic, you must surely know that all hypotheses should be tested - you cannot get round someone making a sound, reasoned argument against your statements by saying that they 'have no idea what history is'. I'm sorry if this bursts your bubble Pierre but out of you and David there is only one of you who has a sound grasp of the history and circumstances around The Whitechapel Murders - and it's not you if that's what you're thinking.

You said Academic when talking to Pierre

[Pierre]

Its only hotly debated by people who believe Richardson and Cadosche liars. There was someone alive on the spot where Annie dies around 5:15am, Cadosches statement is definitive on this point.

Why does it matter?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I MsWeatherwax.

[Michael W Richards]

This is hotly disputed on this forum. Many believe Chapman was killed around 3:00 AM when it would have been dark.

I personally take the orthodox view that she was killed while it was light out, but you can't cite that as a fact around these parts. (To me, the daylight would explain why her mutilations were much more sophisticated than, say, those of Eddowes who was indisputably killed in great darkness).

Its only hotly debated by people who believe Richardson and Cadosche liars. There was someone alive on the spot where Annie dies around 5:15am, Cadosches statement is definitive on this point.

[MsWeatherwax]

we must remember that a fact is a social construction when we write about Anne Chapman.

Regards, Pierre

'We' don't have to remember anything - you may suggest that we consider facts as social constructions if you wish, but I doubt that you're going to gain much traction with that here. This argument is the last bastion of the desperate, Pierre. You might as well say 'whatever is presented to me, I will twist in a manner to suit me because there is a philosophical argument that a fact is not a fact. Therefore, I can make any scenario correct'.



If you choose to attempt to solve a century old murder on the basis that a fact is a 'social construction', Pierre, be my guest. I have no idea how you think you're going to present your research at this stage, but I hope for your sake that you're not considering any attempt to publish. All you have done thus far is create increasingly esoteric and bizarre threads, made very little sense and (it would appear to me) use some of the very knowledgeable contributors here as a short cut for your own research. To add insult to injury, having asked questions and posed theories, you have gone on to be rude, insulting and patronising to the people who have answered your questions.

As an academic, you must surely know that all hypotheses should be tested - you cannot get round someone making a sound, reasoned argument against your statements by saying that they 'have no idea what history is'. I'm sorry if this bursts your bubble Pierre but out of you and David there is only one of you who has a sound grasp of the history and circumstances around The Whitechapel Murders - and it's not you if that's what you're thinking.

[Pierre]

The planet we call Earth existed millions of years before it was populated by humanity. That is a fact now and it was a fact then. This is unaltered by the state of affairs that there were once no humans to articulate it as such. Can we now return to the topic of this thread which purports to be Annie Chapman.

The "fact" had not been constructed millions of years ago and therefore did not exist.

Yes, we can go back to the topic, but we must remember that a fact is a social construction when we write about Anne Chapman.

Regards, Pierre

[Bridewell]

But the problem is that there are no "facts" without humans.

The planet we call Earth existed millions of years before it was populated by humanity. That is a fact now and it was a fact then. This is unaltered by the state of affairs that there were once no humans to articulate it as such. Can we now return to the topic of this thread which purports to be Annie Chapman.

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

I think that I have made it clear that historical facts must be established with high validity and reliability. Donīt you agree that this is important?

Indeed, so how have you established "with high validity and reliability" that the Whitechapel Murderer(s) could read?

Or do you think it would be meaningful if anyone just published his research before it was finished?

It would give the poster greater credibility if he demonstrated to his/her fellows that research had been undertaken

Isnīt ripperology already full of problematic assumptions?

Regards, Pierre

Yes, Ripperology is full of problematic assumptions, but you're the one making them here. You haven't addressed the issue of how you know that the killer could read and what evidence you can adduce in support of that assertion. In the absence of evidence one way or the other you are making an assumption that he (or less probably she) could read.

[MsWeatherwax]

Very silly. David has no idea what history is.

[Elamarna]

Wrong. You mean "natural" science.

No just science, I know what I mean.

No, it is a natural scientific description of an experiment that can be repeated and controlled with the same instruments.

What does?

What I describe is a scientific absolute, it requires no equipment, it happens without intervention from any person.

What ELITIST NONSENSE, STEVE.

No my friend, not elitist at all.
However if we are talking about such, this is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

If this is the best that can be provided as a response, it is indeed very sad.

It establishes "facts".

Why is that a problem?

The force we call gravity could not be a force called gravity before man, could it, Steve? That is the problem.

Its does not matter if it has a name, the physical process would still exist if it had no name.

Scientific/natural forces are not dependent on man?

Plants use one gas and produce another, it does no matter what we call those gases, the process occurs.

Do you really not understand that?

The church would love that!

I assume they would say God created it.

Can one ask what bearing religion has on the issue?

Yes of course, another attempt to divert

So you did not understand how an historical fact is defined.

It is not defined by you! end of.

Very silly. David has no idea what history is.

Not silly at all, yet another normal response to belittle those who disagree.

That is your opinion of David; even if such were true. it would not mean his views are pointless.

That sort of thing can only happen within natural science: "The physical force we call gravity has been in place since this object we call a planet came into existence"

We do not like it when we cannot argue against a FACT do we?

Excelling ourselves today I see.

Are you attempting a new science, Steve?

No why would one think such?


ah yes, raise the point to avoid addressing the issues.




Now to the serious issues, away from the nonsense above.


I see that you are using this post to divert from answering the questions
I asked in post #24:

The Whitehall victim.

The Whitehall victim is not general seen as by the same hand as the c5.

While some, particularly Fisherman, subscribe to this idea, it is still I think a minority viewpoint at present, but one which is worth exploring.

I am glad you named it, it was obvious you would, there are no other examples.

However it once again demonstrates that you claim as an "established fact", to support your theory, something which is certainly not an "established fact".

"Inspector Marshall, of the Criminal Investigation Department, said: About five o’clock on Oct. 2 I went to the new police buildings on the Thames Embankment, and in the basement saw the trunk referred to by previous witnesses. The corner from which it had been taken was pointed out to me, and I saw that the wall was a great deal stained. Examining the ground I found the piece of paper alluded to by the last witness, as well as a piece of string, apparently sash-cord. Dr. Hibbert handed me two pieces of material which had come from the remains. I at once made a thorough search of the vaults, but nothing more was discovered. On the following morning, with other officers, I made a further search of all the vaults, but nothing more was found nor anything suspicious observed. The piece of paper spoken to forms part of an Echo of Aug. 24. Dr. Hibbert handed me a number of small pieces of paper found on the body."

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_whitehall.html

same points as above.
The newspaper found near the body, need not have anything to do with the body.

No, I have not suggested that.

You certainly have post#1

"What can we observe in the case of Annie Chapman that we can not in all or some of the others?"



"In what way(s) was this murder specific?"


The post once again seeks to divert, but got what was required this time.

The naming of the Whitehall torso as by JtR, as an established fact, when it is not.


This is really getting far too easy.



steve