Why Mary had to die.

[Pierre]

This is the reason why Jack the Ripper chose Mary Jane Kelly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PexeYDx48A

Regards Pierre

I agree with this to 50 percent.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

I agree with this to 50 percent.

Pierre

I now assume you are reassessing your position following your research. Is that correct?

Steve

[Pierre]

I now assume you are reassessing your position following your research. Is that correct?

Steve

I want to give you and others a chance to understand what I do/do not agree with.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

I want to give you and others a chance to understand what I do/do not agree with.

Pierre

That's yes.


Steve

[Karl]

I want to give you and others a chance to understand what I do/do not agree with.

Pierre

You agree with yourself 50 percent?

[Pierre]

You agree with yourself 50 percent?

Yes, since there were two reasons, i.e. two causes, i.e. two causal explanations.

[Henry Flower]

I want to give you and others a chance to understand what I do/do not agree with.

I can't imagine any of us are losing any sleep worrying about that, Pierre.

[David Orsam]

I can't imagine any of us are losing any sleep worrying about that, Pierre.

Actually, Henry, I fear that I am going to have some serious trouble sleeping unless Pierre revisits every single one of his 4,407 posts on this forum and tells us whether he now agrees, disagrees or 50% agrees with what he posted on each occasion. In fact, I would like him to go further and tell us those posts he only 25% agrees with and those he 75% agrees with. I'd also like to know those posts that he 5% agrees with and those he 95% disagrees with, unless that is the same thing. Then I might be able to finally get some sleep.

[Henry Flower]

Actually, Henry, I fear that I am going to have some serious trouble sleeping unless Pierre revisits every single one of his 4,407 posts on this forum and tells us whether he now agrees, disagrees or 50% agrees with what he posted on each occasion. In fact, I would like him to go further and tell us those posts he only 25% agrees with and those he 75% agrees with. I'd also like to know those posts that he 5% agrees with and those he 95% disagrees with, unless that is the same thing. Then I might be able to finally get some sleep.

I share your concerns, David. When I'm not losing sleep I'm having nightmares, terrible nightmares, in which I'm interrogated concerning the precise degree to which Pierre's now agrees or disagrees with his previously stated positions, and my panicked responses - "Hilliard hypothesis: Disagrees, 75%" - are deemed far too imprecise. I wake up drenched with sweat, yelling "That's all he told us! I don't know any more! Please, stop!"

However, you may be relieved to know that, paradoxically, Pierre's 4,407 posts are not only the cause but also the perfect cure for sleeplessness. Read them and you'll see. I think that's what psychologists call a 'biological explanatory variable'.

Good luck, sleepyhead!

[barnflatwyngarde]

I want to give you and others a chance to understand what I do/do not agree with.

Pierre

Don't be so pompous!!

[Henry Flower]

Don't be so pompous!!

That's like telling the moon not to be white, or petals not to be fragile, or snakes not to slither.

We cannot buck nature, barnflat.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Yeah fair point Henry.

[David Orsam]

Pierre's 4,407 posts are not only the cause but also the perfect cure for sleeplessness. Read them and you'll see. !

You were quite right Henry. I started reading this one last night (a classic addressed to Fisherman):

"I understand your thinking. But the problem is the gap between the sources at hand and the hypotheses. Donīt you agree with me on that point? Firstly, you hypothesize that Elizabeth Lechmere did not know the name, when we have no sources for her knowledge about the name. The consequence of this thinking is that you seem (!) to think it is accepted to hypothesize without sources and, furthermore, to build a theory on that hypothesis. Is that correct?Because then you work by a certain, specific principle when you are constructing your history. The principle is: A (historical source about Lechmere using the name Cross demands an explanation) > C (explanation) based on B (hypothesis without source). So you find A, make explanation C for it but without B. Would it not have been better for you if you had finished the work with researching Lechmere before you presented Lechmere as "Jack the Ripper", given that the evidence is not sufficient? Also, why is there no evidence from the other murder sites that Lechmere was there? I know it is not Christmas now, but wouldnīt it have been better if you had found at least something in the sources indicating that he was on more than one of the other murder sites? I very honestly wish that you were right about Lechmere, but there is no historical reason for saying that you are. As an historian, I analyse the sources from historical perspectives and with historical methods. So the use of a police investigator and a barrister in a documentary does not mean anything to me. You could put forth all the "experts" you like and let them all say that Lechmere could have been a killer, but since they are not historians, they can not research the past with a valid result. When you research the past, you must do sources criticism, use text analysis, go through the work of interpreting the value of the sources from the perspective of validity and reliability, establish facts on a wide range - since you research a serial killer! - and find that the facts together make history with coherence. I can tell you that I have a hard time with my historical sources. They are difficult since they point to one thing, but at the same time they have a variation in their reliability like all sources from the past, and I would never put forth a person from the past and try to persuade people that he was a serial killer if I did not have very good historical reasons. Therefore, the sources must indicate that the killer can be connected to all the murders, the sources must show us that there was an explicit motive, that there was sufficient knowledge and skill to perform the murders, that the type of methods the killer used was a behaviour known by the person you think is the killer, and that there was a reason both to start and stop the killings. Also, you must be able to connect your "suspect" to the murders on a micro level. And the sources from the past must be explained by your theory. And finally, you need an item that is personal and can only be connected to one single person and that item must be from 1888. All this, Fisherman, is what I define as "very good historical reasons". But you are a journalist, so why do you do this? Is it some journalistic attention seeking? Because I can tell you as an historian that your sources are far from sufficient for the theory of Lechmere being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper. Your sources are sufficient for the theory that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols. And still, there are problems with the sources, which makes the theory weak. You do not have the original inquest sources and you have nothing to support the hypothesis discussed above. I would be happy if you did. So what can you do to improve your source material?"

Slept like a log.

[Henry Flower]

You were quite right Henry. I started reading this one last night (a classic addressed to Fisherman):

"I understand your thinking. But the problem is the gap between the sources at hand and the hypotheses. Donīt you agree with me on that point? Firstly, you hypothesize that Elizabeth Lechmere did not know the name, when we have no sources for her knowledge about the name. The consequence of this thinking is that you seem (!) to think it is accepted to hypothesize without sources and, furthermore, to build a theory on that hypothesis. Is that correct?Because then you work by a certain, specific principle when you are constructing your history. The principle is: A (historical source about Lechmere using the name Cross demands an explanation) > C (explanation) based on B (hypothesis without source). So you find A, make explanation C for it but without B. Would it not have been better for you if you had finished the work with researching Lechmere before you presented Lechmere as "Jack the Ripper", given that the evidence is not sufficient? Also, why is there no evidence from the other murder sites that Lechmere was there? I know it is not Christmas now, but wouldnīt it have been better if you had found at least something in the sources indicating that he was on more than one of the other murder sites? I very honestly wish that you were right about Lechmere, but there is no historical reason for saying that you are. As an historian, I analyse the sources from historical perspectives and with historical methods. So the use of a police investigator and a barrister in a documentary does not mean anything to me. You could put forth all the "experts" you like and let them all say that Lechmere could have been a killer, but since they are not historians, they can not research the past with a valid result. When you research the past, you must do sources criticism, use text analysis, go through the work of interpreting the value of the sources from the perspective of validity and reliability, establish facts on a wide range - since you research a serial killer! - and find that the facts together make history with coherence. I can tell you that I have a hard time with my historical sources. They are difficult since they point to one thing, but at the same time they have a variation in their reliability like all sources from the past, and I would never put forth a person from the past and try to persuade people that he was a serial killer if I did not have very good historical reasons. Therefore, the sources must indicate that the killer can be connected to all the murders, the sources must show us that there was an explicit motive, that there was sufficient knowledge and skill to perform the murders, that the type of methods the killer used was a behaviour known by the person you think is the killer, and that there was a reason both to start and stop the killings. Also, you must be able to connect your "suspect" to the murders on a micro level. And the sources from the past must be explained by your theory. And finally, you need an item that is personal and can only be connected to one single person and that item must be from 1888. All this, Fisherman, is what I define as "very good historical reasons". But you are a journalist, so why do you do this? Is it some journalistic attention seeking? Because I can tell you as an historian that your sources are far from sufficient for the theory of Lechmere being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper. Your sources are sufficient for the theory that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols. And still, there are problems with the sources, which makes the theory weak. You do not have the original inquest sources and you have nothing to support the hypothesis discussed above. I would be happy if you did. So what can you do to improve your source material?"

Slept like a log.

It worked for me too! I laughed myself unconscious!!

But then I woke up in tears....

[barnflatwyngarde]

You were quite right Henry. I started reading this one last night (a classic addressed to Fisherman):

"I understand your thinking. But the problem is the gap between the sources at hand and the hypotheses. Donīt you agree with me on that point? Firstly, you hypothesize that Elizabeth Lechmere did not know the name, when we have no sources for her knowledge about the name. The consequence of this thinking is that you seem (!) to think it is accepted to hypothesize without sources and, furthermore, to build a theory on that hypothesis. Is that correct?Because then you work by a certain, specific principle when you are constructing your history. The principle is: A (historical source about Lechmere using the name Cross demands an explanation) > C (explanation) based on B (hypothesis without source). So you find A, make explanation C for it but without B. Would it not have been better for you if you had finished the work with researching Lechmere before you presented Lechmere as "Jack the Ripper", given that the evidence is not sufficient? Also, why is there no evidence from the other murder sites that Lechmere was there? I know it is not Christmas now, but wouldnīt it have been better if you had found at least something in the sources indicating that he was on more than one of the other murder sites? I very honestly wish that you were right about Lechmere, but there is no historical reason for saying that you are. As an historian, I analyse the sources from historical perspectives and with historical methods. So the use of a police investigator and a barrister in a documentary does not mean anything to me. You could put forth all the "experts" you like and let them all say that Lechmere could have been a killer, but since they are not historians, they can not research the past with a valid result. When you research the past, you must do sources criticism, use text analysis, go through the work of interpreting the value of the sources from the perspective of validity and reliability, establish facts on a wide range - since you research a serial killer! - and find that the facts together make history with coherence. I can tell you that I have a hard time with my historical sources. They are difficult since they point to one thing, but at the same time they have a variation in their reliability like all sources from the past, and I would never put forth a person from the past and try to persuade people that he was a serial killer if I did not have very good historical reasons. Therefore, the sources must indicate that the killer can be connected to all the murders, the sources must show us that there was an explicit motive, that there was sufficient knowledge and skill to perform the murders, that the type of methods the killer used was a behaviour known by the person you think is the killer, and that there was a reason both to start and stop the killings. Also, you must be able to connect your "suspect" to the murders on a micro level. And the sources from the past must be explained by your theory. And finally, you need an item that is personal and can only be connected to one single person and that item must be from 1888. All this, Fisherman, is what I define as "very good historical reasons". But you are a journalist, so why do you do this? Is it some journalistic attention seeking? Because I can tell you as an historian that your sources are far from sufficient for the theory of Lechmere being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper. Your sources are sufficient for the theory that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols. And still, there are problems with the sources, which makes the theory weak. You do not have the original inquest sources and you have nothing to support the hypothesis discussed above. I would be happy if you did. So what can you do to improve your source material?"

Slept like a log.

That's an absolute doozy.

I'm so glad that I missed it the first time.