Specific

[Yabs]

I think one unique quirk in the murder of Annie Chapman was it being the only murder that didn't take place in the darkness of night.

Before BST, sunrise on the 8th sept 1888 would have been about 5:30 with a relatively bright twilight from about 5:00.

[Damaso Marte]

I think one unique quirk in the murder of Annie Chapman was it being the only murder that didn't take place in the darkness of night.

Before BST, sunrise on the 8th sept 1888 would have been about 5:30 with a relatively bright twilight from about 5:00.

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).

[barnflatwyngarde]

"One must understand that the killer read the newspapers, where he learned a lot about the victims as well as about what people thought about the murders."

Proof???????

[MysterySinger]

Would it be fair to say that we only "know" of one person who read the papers since Joseph Barnett said he read them to Kelly.?

[Elamarna]

Hi,

So, if the doctors thought the mutilations on Chapman were skillful, that was something for the killer to be proud of when he read about it in the newspapers.

How can we be sure he could read?

The level of skill shown depended on who you were listen to.

Chapman is also the only victim where there was another victim killed on the same day, on the one-year anniversary of Annie Chapman's death.

Actually Pierre, that is your interpretation of the 1889 date, it is not an accepted historic fact as you like to say.

One must understand that the killer read the newspapers, where he learned a lot about the victims as well as about what people thought about the murders.

Did he really?

Would you care to illuminate us all on what gives you this information or insight?


Pierre, what you have posted would indeed make the staring point for an hypothesis worth debating.
However there appears to be little to support the argument, apart from the finding of the Pinchin street Torso on the 10th September 1889, with the comments it could have been 1 or 2 days old.
Everything else is pure speculation, nothing wrong with that of course.
Can one ask however where is the historic data to back up the hypotheses.

Your opening gambit on this thread was:

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

What specific historical facts can we establish for the signature, victimology and/or modus operandi regarding the murder of Chapman?

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



So far you have produced nothing which would give any answers to those questions.

We are all waiting.



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392275]

How can we be sure he could read?

The level of skill shown depended on who you were listen to.

Hi Steve,

"How can we be sure" you ask. We can be sure in this way (=how): when we have sources showing that he could read.

Actually Pierre, that is your interpretation of the 1889 date, it is not an accepted historic fact as you like to say.

All historical facts are based on sources and interpretation of sources. If you say that something is an historical fact, you have established it as such using sources and interpretation.

Therefore, just saying that something is not an "accepted historical fact" just means that there is a discussion about the source(s) and interpretation(s) of sources.

So it is nothing radical, Steve.

Did he really? (Read the newspapers).

Would you care to illuminate us all on what gives you this information or insight?

If you use the sparse material in the newspapers from 1888 and 1889 and your hypothesis is that the Whitehall case was based on a murder by the Whitechapel killer, you can say that your hypothesis is that he could read the newspapers since he left the remains together with some newspaper material. On the other hand you can also say that just because he did so, did not mean he could read the papers he had used. You can also hypothesize that the GSG was written by the killer and therefore he could read, since he could write. If you do not think he did write it, that source is not your data. You can also hypothesize that he sent one or more letters to the police or the press, and if that is your hypothesis he could write.

If, on the other hand, you believe that some specific person was the killer and you know that he could write, that knowledge is based on good historical sources. And if you do not know that he was the killer, you know that a person in the past could write.

And whatever your hypothesis is, it will always be established on sources and constitute an historical fact. This historical fact has itīs own problems with validity and reliability and is a social construction like any other historical fact.

As you see, Steve, I am being very clear with my answer to you. I hope you appreciate that.

Pierre, what you have posted would indeed make the staring point for an hypothesis worth debating.

However there appears to be little to support the argument, apart from the finding of the Pinchin street Torso on the 10th September 1889, with the comments it could have been 1 or 2 days old.

Steve, I think the support is good enough. The day, be it the 8th or the 9th, is a year from the murder of Chapman. The place (Whitechapel) is also very significant. It is just a couple of minutes from Leman Street Police Station.

Everything else is pure speculation, nothing wrong with that of course.
Can one ask however where is the historic data to back up the hypotheses.

With "pure speculation" one assumes that there are zero data sources. Since that is hardly ever the case, I would prefer if you avoid such an expression, since it is not correct.

It is better to speak about validity and reliability, since it enables us to have a serious scientifically based discussion instead of a discussion that do not lead the knowledge about the case forward.

Your opening gambit on this thread was:

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

Yes, I thought it might be an interesting question, which can work as a tool to make visible certain traits in that particular case. But we can do the same for the others as well.

What specific historical facts can we establish for the signature, victimology and/or modus operandi regarding the murder of Chapman?

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

Yes. Maybe I should go back to the article by Keppel et al (The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel murders) but I was more interested in hearing other peoples views, since I think it may generate new interesting questions for us all.

So far you have produced nothing which would give any answers to those questions.

We are all waiting.

Yes, I am actually waiting too. So we have that in common.

Regards, Pierre

[Bridewell]

"How can we be sure" you ask. We can be sure in this way (=how): when we have sources showing that he could read.

I'll repeat the question that the above purports to answer:

How can you be sure that he could read? You are the one making the assertion. What sources? Back it up with something.

[Pierre]

I'll repeat the question that the above purports to answer:

How can you be sure that he could read? You are the one making the assertion. What sources? Back it up with something.

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?

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

Isnīt ripperology already full of problematic assumptions?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

"How can we be sure" you ask. We can be sure in this way (=how): when we have sources showing that he could read.

I see from your comments below, the sources you suggest.


However none of those you mention can be shown to be directly linked to the killer.

For the purpose of debate, I am prepared to accept that you can make these links to your man; unfortunately that is not the same, given that you are still claiming that you are not sure about him.

All historical facts are based on sources and interpretation of sources. If you say that something is an historical fact, you have established it as such using sources and interpretation.

Therefore, just saying that something is not an "accepted historical fact" just means that there is a discussion about the source(s) and interpretation(s) of sources.

So it is nothing radical, Steve.

I did not say it was, however you made a specific claim, that it is not possible to sustain, or does a year and a day have the same significance for you?

If you use the sparse material in the newspapers from 1888 and 1889 and your hypothesis is that the Whitehall case was based on a murder by the Whitechapel killer, you can say that your hypothesis is that he could read the newspapers since he left the remains together with some newspaper material. On the other hand you can also say that just because he did so, did not mean he could read the papers he had used.

Could you remind me please which of the killers victims had newspaper material left with them?

In which cases can we be sure that any such material was left by the killer and not just an object which was in the area independently?

And has you rightly say, even if left by killer, it does not mean he could read.

It seems clear that this source has very limited if any value in trying to determine the killers ability to read.

You can also hypothesize that the GSG was written by the killer and therefore he could read, since he could write. If you do not think he did write it, that source is not your data.

Agreed, for me it is valueless in making a conclusion on this issue.

You can also hypothesize that he sent one or more letters to the police or the press, and if that is your hypothesis he could write.

Considering that the police and press received hundreds of such letter, to believe that the killer sent a particular letter, one must have another source to support such an idea.

Given that no such additional source is currently available to discuss, I consider this source to be of no value.

If, on the other hand, you believe that some specific person was the killer and you know that he could write, that knowledge is based on good historical sources.

And I believe, rightly or wrongly that this is what you are often doing,
using your view, based on the sources you will not admit into any debate.

This means that there is no way for anyone else to asses if the man is the killer or not.

And if you do not know that he was the killer, you know that a person in the past could write.

Which for the purpose of this debate is irrelevant.

And whatever your hypothesis is, it will always be established on sources and constitute an historical fact. This historical fact has itīs own problems with validity and reliability and is a social construction like any other historical fact.

As you see, Steve, I am being very clear with my answer to you. I hope you appreciate that.

Pierre you are very clear in what you say, and very predictable, I could almost have written it myself

Steve, I think the support is good enough. The day, be it the 8th or the 9th, is a year from the murder of Chapman. The place (Whitechapel) is also very significant. It is just a couple of minutes from Leman Street Police Station.

You have answered the question I asked above, for you, a year and a day or a year are the same.

I do not see the place as being significant.

I see nothing above which cold be definitely linked to the killer, indeed many of the sources you suggest I consider are of little value in this debate.

The GSG is somewhat different, and the view one takes is entirely dependent of whom one thinks wrote it, as you rightly say.

With "pure speculation" one assumes that there are zero data sources. Since that is hardly ever the case, I would prefer if you avoid such an expression, since it is not correct.

Unfortunately Pierre, given that I see little value in the sources you suggest in this particular debate,and have no additional sources, I still see nothing to show it is anything other than "speculation", but will say just that rather than "pure Speculation".

I am sorry if you do not like this.

It is better to speak about validity and reliability, since it enables us to have a serious scientifically based discussion instead of a discussion that do not lead the knowledge about the case forward.

I would truly love to have a serious scientific discussion.
Unfortunately that is not possible when one party in a debate uses sources which they will not reveal, but attempts to use such sources to support the arguments they use.

In such circumstances it is not possible to have a serious scientific debate; if the sources are revealed of course the position changes.

Yes, I thought it might be an interesting question, which can work as a tool to make visible certain traits in that particular case. But we can do the same for the others as well.

Pierre, given that you are suggesting this murder in particular is different from the others, that is what you have stated, it is entirely up to you to give the answer why.

While you suggest a second murder it is very far from conclusive.

Yes. Maybe I should go back to the article by Keppel et al (The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel murders) but I was more interested in hearing other peoples views, since I think it may generate new interesting questions for us all.

Yes I said it is worthy of some debate, which has now been done.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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?

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

Isnīt ripperology already full of problematic assumptions?

Regards, Pierre

In which case may I respectfully suggest that one refrains from saying things are fact, and instead suggests they are an unproven theory and no more, until one is prepared to publish.

That would be the honest thing for an academic historian to do!


Steve

[Pierre]

In which case may I respectfully suggest that one refrains from saying things are fact, and instead suggests they are an unproven theory and no more, until one is prepared to publish.

That would be the honest thing for an academic historian to do!

Steve

Hi Steve,

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

It is a known problem within the social sciences.

A fact is a social construction. It is a human artefact.

What is your position in relation to this issue?

Are you a total fundamentalist or a total relativist or something in between and why?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi Steve,

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

It is a known problem within the social sciences.

A fact is a social construction. It is a human artefact.

What is your position in relation to this issue?

Are you a total fundamentalist or a total relativist or something in between and why?

A good example of why it is impossible to have a sensible discussion with Pierre. Steve suggests that Pierre refrain from saying things are facts without evidence and, instead of responding to this easily understood suggestion, Pierre goes off on a loopy discussion about what "facts" are and whether they exist.

The strange thing is that Pierre has no problem referring to "facts" when it suits him. I give just five of many examples:

Thread: 19th century "anatomical skill" #78, 23 June 2016

"That, together with what might have been the fact that it was not allowed to take organs from a murder victim before the post mortem, as well as the fact that it would obscure the investigation of the Whitechapel murders (my own hypothetical historical fact!) and perhaps lower the chances of understanding the methods of the killer, makes it very difficult to believe in the hypothesis of Trevor."

Thread: Lawende was silenced #142 20 June 2016

"Actually, it is an historical fact that using two names is not an indication for being a serial killer.

Also, it is actually an historical fact that living and/or working in an area where serial murders were committed is not an indication for being a serial killer.

And it is also a historical fact that finding a dead body on a street is not an indication of being a serial killer.

These are historical facts but Fisherman constructs a theory against history by using sources from the past in the wrong way."

Thread: Lawende was silenced #87 15 June 2016

"David. You donīt have to understand my position. But I have nothing else to do right now than to think what I am thinking. Believe me, I would prefer not to. But actually, I must consider the sources. So the hypothesis about Lechmere is naturally compared to the statements made by Arnold and by the fact that Lawende did not tell the court what dress the man he saw had."

Thread: Punishment #34 14 March 2016

"No, Steve....You should consider the fact that your belief that others make mistakes could perhaps be explained by the fact that you sometimes donīt understand what others say."

Thread: Let there be light! #136 1 April 2016

"I certainly hope that you can distinguish Dr Bond and his statements from Mrs Maxwell and her statements.

The historically established fact (a fact that some try to change due to the lack of understanding of the sources) that they are speaking about the same person - Kelly - does NOT mean that the witnesses are EQUALLY reliable as witnesses!"

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

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

It is a known problem within the social sciences.

A fact is a social construction. It is a human artefact.

What is your position in relation to this issue?

Are you a total fundamentalist or a total relativist or something in between and why?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,


We are human, living in a human society, to try and argue that there are no real facts is of course the hiding place of the soft sciences where there are no absolutes.


If there were no humans, there would still be absolutes. Gravity for instance would still exist, even if there were no one to experience it or record it. However to attempt to discuss such is a futile exercise.

Of course if there were no humans, there would be no history recorded, However this object we all live on which we call a planet which revolves around another object we call a star would still exist but of course they would have no names because there would be no one to give them such.

It is not a problem at all for me to use the word "fact", nor i suggest for the majority of people alive.


What term would you prefer to use?
Actual you use the word yourself, the concept is clear and is well understood.

Why are you discussing it?

Of course we are discussing it so has not to answer questions, of look at viewpoints we do not like!

In this case, this is a diversion to the points I made in my post.



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392333]

Pierre,

We are human, living in a human society, to try and argue that there are no real facts is of course the hiding place of the soft sciences where there are no absolutes.

The absolutes have been all but absolute, Steve. That is why the social sciences are no hiding place but critical sciences.

If there were no humans, there would still be absolutes.

The absolutes are human artefacts, i.e. social constructions.

Gravity for instance would still exist,

It would "exist" - for whom?

even if there were no one to experience it or record it.

Measurement instruments are social constructions made by humans. Man is the measure of everything.

Of course if there were no humans, there would be no history recorded, However this object we all live on which we call a planet which revolves around another object we call a star would still exist but of course they would have no names because there would be no one to give them such.

The philosophers have debated the meaning of language for ontology for a long time. I will not discuss it since I am not a philosopher. But for an historian, language is a big problem. It hides or reveals events in the past. And since words are produced in sources by humans with social motives and social interests, one can never believe a source or read it at face value.

It is not a problem at all for me to use the word "fact", nor i suggest for the majority of people alive.

But they have no chance to understand the construction of what is called "facts" without education, so it is a democratic problem.

What term would you prefer to use?

I would like to use the concept "established fact" but connected to a discussion about reliability and validity. And I would not like to discuss a "fact" as something "natural", given all the scientific problems with such a description.

Actual you use the word yourself, the concept is clear and is well understood.

No, it is foggy. It hides things and make people believe they see the truth. A well established fact is a well established fact and not just a "fact". Someone has actually established it from a set of sources. That is a well established fact.

Why are you discussing it?

Of course we are discussing it so has not to answer questions, of look at viewpoints we do not like!

No, Steve. I do not want history to be what I think it should be. It want it to kick back. So there are no turning away from certain "viewpoints". For example, I was hoping that David could help me to disprove a hypothesis about the song Sweet Violets. He failed to do so. I was really hoping to let that silly song and strange hypothesis go. But no. And I would like this whole case to be disproved.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;392332

A good example of why it is impossible to have a sensible discussion with Pierre. Steve suggests that Pierre refrain from saying things are facts without evidence and, instead of responding to this easily understood suggestion, Pierre goes off on a loopy discussion about what "facts" are and whether they exist.

The strange thing is that Pierre has no problem referring to "facts" when it suits him. I give just five of many examples:

No, David. You have totally misunderstood my definition of a "fact". It is not given by what is "suiting". So have a look at this:

Thread: 19th century "anatomical skill" #78, 23 June 2016

"That, together with what might have been the fact that it was not allowed to take organs from a murder victim before the post mortem, as well as the fact that it would obscure the investigation of the Whitechapel murders (my own hypothetical historical fact!) and perhaps lower the chances of understanding the methods of the killer, makes it very difficult to believe in the hypothesis of Trevor."

It might have been a fact. I.e. a social fact, i.e. a social construction. We may be able to construct it from sources, i.e. to establish it as a fact. I did not know anything about it, but Trevor seemed to know how to establish it as a fact. But I donīt think he gave the sources for his "established fact".

Thread: Lawende was silenced #142 20 June 2016

"Actually, it is an historical fact that using two names is not an indication for being a serial killer.

An historical fact is simply a fact established by historians. It is established on sources. If you work with statistics, you establish facts on figures. It becomes a statistical fact. Historians can of course also establish historical facts on figures.

Also, it is actually an historical fact that living and/or working in an area where serial murders were committed is not an indication for being a serial killer.

That is actually a statistical fact. It can easily be established as such a fact using some statistical data.

And it is also a historical fact that finding a dead body on a street is not an indication of being a serial killer.

A combination of figures and chronology gives this historical and statistical fact.

These are historical facts but Fisherman constructs a theory against history by using sources from the past in the wrong way."

Established historical facts, and they are always more or less well established.

Thread: Lawende was silenced #87 15 June 2016

"David. You donīt have to understand my position. But I have nothing else to do right now than to think what I am thinking. Believe me, I would prefer not to. But actually, I must consider the sources. So the hypothesis about Lechmere is naturally compared to the statements made by Arnold and by the fact that Lawende did not tell the court what dress the man he saw had."

Easy to establish as an historical fact from inquest and newspapers. Has the problems following with this establishment.

Thread: Punishment #34 14 March 2016

"No, Steve....You should consider the fact that your belief that others make mistakes could perhaps be explained by the fact that you sometimes donīt understand what others say."

Established from your statment about other people making mistakes and your statements that you do not understand, or your failure to understand, which is clear in some posts. So the material for establishing this fact are posts you have written. It is a sort of historical fact. You might want to dispute it and say it has low validity and so on and so forth. But still, an established fact or two.

Thread: Let there be light! #136 1 April 2016

"I certainly hope that you can distinguish Dr Bond and his statements from Mrs Maxwell and her statements.

The historically established fact (a fact that some try to change due to the lack of understanding of the sources) that they are speaking about the same person - Kelly - does NOT mean that the witnesses are EQUALLY reliable as witnesses!"

Very easy to understand as historically established facts. It is a matter of methodology, where you criticize the sources and compare them. You get results and have established some historical facts. They have some validity and reliability and can always be discussed.

Regards, Pierre