Specific

[David Orsam]

For example, I was hoping that David could help me to disprove a hypothesis about the song Sweet Violets. He failed to do so.

You can't stop can you Pierre? It's not my responsibility to disprove anything, especially not your barmy theories. If you have a radical new theory, you need to prove it.

In the case of Sweet Violets, you failed to produce a single piece of evidence to support the notion that the song lyrics were "planted" in the press by the killer. It's a batty, preposterous idea. Nor did you produce a single piece of evidence to support the notion that those lyrics had any meaning in respect of the murders let alone that they created "fear" in anyone, which is what you claimed.

All I have ever been able to do is point you to the newspaper report which stated that a local person heard Kelly singing Sweet Violets, and another report that McCarthy was told the same thing, and clear up some of your misunderstandings on the subject. The theory is another dead theory. It didn't need me to "disprove" it because it didn't even get off the ground to start with.

[David Orsam]

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:

Pierre, you don't get to define a "fact". That definition is available to us all from a dictionary.

I don't know if you are trying to make a distinction between a fact and a historical fact (and, of course, there is no difference whatsoever) but when Steve suggested you refrain from saying things are facts without evidence he was talking about historical facts. The point I was making was that rather than confront this point you waffled on ludicrously about whether "facts" exist or not (despite the fact that you are perfectly capable of talking about facts when it suits you).

It's a typical "tactic" of yours which destroys the possibility of having a sensible on-topic conversation with you on this forum.

[Elamarna]

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

Nonsense, obviously no idea what so ever about science.


Example.

Liquids change into gas and a solid, depending on the temperature and the attitude.
While those are terms are indeed "constructs" as you call them; never the less at the "construct points" , environmental factors for the everybody else, that is temperature and attitudes, put in place by humans, those changes occur.

Matter changes its form

That is a scientific absolute!


We are back where we were months ago, and you have provide a great example why social sciences, as you see them, are not true science.

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

Yes, why do you see that as a problem?

It would "exist" - for whom?

Are you suggesting that the force we call gravity, did not exist before man?

The physical force we call gravity has been in place since this object we call a planet came into existence, Just because there is no one there, it does not mean it does not exist.

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

And what is the problem with that?

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

Again where is the problem with that?

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.



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.

Pierre, you do not wish to discuss anything other than your own ideas,

So a fact is established if you say it is, I see!

It is ok if you say "fact", but not so for anyone else-- comical!

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.

For most people I think you will find that David and others gave ample arguments to disprove your suggestion

However it is true that you did not allowed those views to have any effect on your preconceived idea.

My friend you have, it seems lost all sense of impartiality, and really cannot "see the wood for the tress"
Unfortunately I am not sure you are even attempting to look.


Please stop this nonsense that you wish to fail!

You have put too much effort into posting, if not research, of which may I add you have supplied no proof, to wish that you fail.

The simple truth is that the EGO will not allow such a thing.



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:


"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 of course the real crux of the thread:



"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."

I eagerly await more evasion and diversion.


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;392363

Nonsense, obviously no idea what so ever about science.

Wrong. You mean "natural" science.

Example.

Liquids change into gas and a solid, depending on the temperature and the attitude.
While those are terms are indeed "constructs" as you call them; never the less at the "construct points" , environmental factors for the everybody else, that is temperature and attitudes, put in place by humans, those changes occur.

Matter changes its form

That is a scientific absolute!

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

We are back where we were months ago, and you have provide a great example why social sciences, as you see them, are not true science.

What ELITIST NONSENSE, STEVE.

Yes, why do you see that as a problem?

It establishes "facts".

Are you suggesting that the force we call gravity, did not exist before man?

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

The physical force we call gravity has been in place since this object we call a planet came into existence, Just because there is no one there, it does not mean it does not exist.

The church would love that!

Pierre, you do not wish to discuss anything other than your own ideas,

So a fact is established if you say it is, I see!

It is ok if you say "fact", but not so for anyone else-- comical!

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

For most people I think you will find that David and others gave ample arguments to disprove your suggestion

Very silly. David has no idea what history is.

However it is true that you did not allowed those views to have any effect on your preconceived idea.

My friend you have, it seems lost all sense of impartiality, and really cannot "see the wood for the tress"

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"

Unfortunately I am not sure you are even attempting to look.

Please stop this nonsense that you wish to fail!

You have put too much effort into posting, if not research, of which may I add you have supplied no proof, to wish that you fail.

The simple truth is that the EGO will not allow such a thing.

Are you attempting a new science, Steve?


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:

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

The Whitehall victim.

"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?"

"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_doc...whitehall.html

And of course the real crux of the thread:

"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."

I eagerly await more evasion and diversion.

No, I have not suggested that.

[David Orsam]

Very silly. David has no idea what history is.

We can't all be renowned historians, Pierre, but I do know what history isn't. And it isn't the imaginative fiction that you've been peddling on this forum since day one.

[GUT]

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.

Why???? He hasn't with any other half baked claim he's made so far.....

[GUT]

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

And if he was one he would, but as he isn't why would he?

[John Wheat]

And if he was one he would, but as he isn't why would he?

[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_doc...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

[MsWeatherwax]

Very silly. David has no idea what history is.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.