|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3058
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 1:38 pm: |       |
"Alternative Ripperolgy: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders," a 44-item question-and-answer "statement of the logical argument manifesting the case solution" by David M. Radka, is now available on the Casebook at:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-ar.html
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 217
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
I am immediately reminded of a few lines by Jean De La Fontaine: "A mountain in labor shouted so loud that everyone, summoned by the noise, ran up expecting that she would be delivered of a city bigger than Paris; she brought for a mouse."
Or, to borrow from a more contemporary source: "Is that all there is?"
Don.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 542
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Donald,
Immediately is right. 15 minutes after the link is posted, you have already read the entire article, digested it and brought forth an opinion. That's impressive but less believable than the article itself.
I think you have been saving up that quote for a long time to post regardless of what the actual work was.
I don't necessarily think that David has solved the case, but I am going to actually read the thing carefully first before venturing an opinion.
Ally
 |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 543
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
David,
Congratulations on finally putting your theory out there. I remain unconvinced but here are a few questions you could perhaps settle for me?
If the murderer was trying to pin it on Aaron, wouldn't allowing himself be seen by people who could recognize him invalidate that? Why would they back up his story and convict an innocent man, letting the real murderer go free? What would possibly convince them to do this? The reward hardly seems likely--the chance that you will get to witnesses who when confronted by a madman, agreeing to go into conspiracy with that madman, is ..uh..extremely unlikely.
Your premise is that Levy recognized the killer and remained silent so as not to stir up anti-semitism. But if the goal of the murderer was to have Aaron, a Jew, take the fall, why would Levy or any other witness be willing to identify a false Jewish killer but not the real Jewish killer? In other words, why would Levy remain silent so as not to arouse anti-semitism about the killer, but allow another Jewish man to take the blame, also risking arousing that same anti-semitism. That makes no sense.
Wouldn't it make more sense for Levy to "free himself" from the psycopath by having the real psycho arrested?
Have you actually connected Levy to the Kosminski family in any way or is this just supposition?
And if Levy's motives were compassionate, i.e. he wanted to remove Aaron from the psychopath's clutches, why not commit the psychopath, not Aaron? He leaves everyone else in the psychopath's clutches but removes the lunatic? You then say Levy confronts the psycho and the psycho stops...uh, why? He knows Levy saw him, why does it matter that Levy tells him he was seen? Plus, by identifying Aaron, Levy could hardly turn around and say "whoops, I was wrong" should the real killer start killing again so what possible leverage would Levy actually have? Psychopaths, as you yourself said, don't have fear and they don't have the same reasoning that we do. A scolding isn't going to stop a psychopath, neither is a fear of getting caught. These two cornerstones of your theory are highly inconsistent and contradictory.
How do you reconcile the degree of planning that your psycopath apparently experiences when there is no other killer ever known who has defined their killing as anything more than impulse they are unable to control? If he wanted Aaron out of his life and he had no problem with killing people, why not just kill Aaron? Your scenario seems as convoluted and implausible as the Royal Conspiracy.
These are just some thoughts that occurred to me as I read your theory, but again, congrats on finally bringing it to light.
Peace,
Ally
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
I want to congratulate David Radka as well for finally putting his theory on display. I must admit, I was beginning to think that would never happen. Now that it's here, it's evident that Mr Radka has put a lot of work into it and that shall of course be acknowledged and respected.
Unfortunately I can't comment on it in a thorough way, since I must admit I understand not more than half of it. I should of course only speak for myself here, but obviously it is not meant to be read by anyone of non-Englsih or non-American origin. I have read quite many English dissertations during my years in university, but this one was too tough for me, from a language point of view. It's apparent that Radka with greatest certainty has some sort of university connection, since the need to expressing oneself unnecessarily high-flown and beyond the capacity of ordinary human beings, is particulary urging in those circuits. A shame, actually, since I actually was looking forward a bit to this particular piece.
From what I understood, Radka is of the opinion, that the murders were done by a psychopath, who 1) for egoistic reasons wanted to regain his position in and and control of his own household - since it had become threatened by the appearance of the ill Kosminski, who needed to be taken care of, combined with the fact that
2) he wanted to provoke actions which pressed the authorities to acknowledge him and put up a heavy reward, a reward he himself intended to collect by framing Kosminski of the murders.
This theory is not only incredibly complicated, constructed and far-fetched (far beyond the ones proposed by Fido, for example), it also go against much of the facts we know about psychopaths who perform these types of mutilated murders. I have yet not come across one single psychopathic perpetrator of similar crimes, performing such murders only from selfish attention-seeking and money issues (even though he does accept that there may be some elements of sexual behaviour behind them).
Radka has time and time again urged us here to "look at the facts" and not to complicate matters any further. What Radka does is actually the opposite; his problem is that he doesen't read and treat the evidence from a police investigation perspective but solely from a psychological point of view, and from there adds his own very personal interpretations of the events. I'm afraid I don't see evidence in half of it that supports his speculations, although I envy his flair for the imaginary. So, no I don't buy neither the method or the result.
Another thing that bothers me, which also underlines my opinion about the one-sideness in his statements, is the list of sources, which is inadequate and not spread over enough fields and types of literature, in order to be taken seriously. The sources clearly shows, that Radka already from the beginning had been striving for a method and a result heading in a certain direction. That is not good for the sake of objectivity.
That being said, I once again want to state that I am glad to see that his claims of a solution on his own behalf not just was egocentric talk in the wind, but actually referred to a real piece of work. That, I feel, has immensely increased his credibility. I am impressed by the efforts he has put into it and I don't doubt for a minute that his intentions are honest and true in his own mind.
So, David Radka - although I don't necessarily agree with or can really grasp the essence of your findings, congratulations to the publication and I am quite certain of that there are certain bits of your theories that may come of valid use to future Ripperology.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 218
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
Ally,
Sorry to refute your theory, but that is not what happened. I was on my way back to work, decided to check the boards and must have seen Stephen's announcement as soon as it was posted. Clicked on the link and. . . . no, I did not read it word-for-word but I looked at each of the 44 points well enough to get the gist and was disappointed. And part-way through I thought of the quotation, so when I was done reading I reached into the desk drawer for my Penguin Dictionary of Quotations and got the wording right.
I find it insulting that you would suggest I was waiting, with quotation at the ready, to pounce. The only "jumping" I did was to the link and I did that with a great deal of interest. After all, David has for a long time led us to believe he truly had the goods on Jack, and I was eager to see if he were right.
As it was, I found only fiction. An inventive bit of fiction to be sure and it might well be an example of art accurately imitating life, but it is also nothing but surmise.
Don. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 718
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Thankyou David for a fascinating theory.
I see the point of the psychopath
-wanting to capitalise on the immediate conflict brewing between capitalist minded Jews and socialist minded Jews as exemplified by those frequenting the Int. Workg. mens clubs and the Imperial Club[next to the Great synagogue in Mitre Square]
-needing the two sets of witnesses
-setting up Aaron as the scapegoat
-destroying maternal power in executimg the murders and mutilations[to HIS satisfaction]
-gaining and regaining centre stage
-revelling in the mayhem he is causing
-taking the risks he did because he was confident in his invulnerability
-I fail to understand why such a killer took the trophies he did[apart from the kidney which you exlain].
Are you claiming that he would fetishise with these later?
Also seem to skim over Mary Kelly"s murder which you nevertheless include as being one of his.
You dont explain why he found it necessary to "let rip" in this murder.
Are you claiming that ,like the lusk letter he was simply trying to increase the terror and get a better financial "reward"?
Nevertheless I can accept great swathes of your hypothesis.This is a ripper I can believe in-very plausible,completely ruthless,intent on financial gain,resentful of anyone stealing his kudos over the murders, and capable of keeping the necessary distance in executing the murders viz displaying the "cool" he came to be known for.
A remarkable work.Congratulations.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2389
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
Hi David
Well, I'm not sure about the overall theory but there were some intriguing suggestions along the way. Plenty of food for thought here.
You must also be congratulated for sticking your neck on the line.
One thing : why no mention of circumcising incisions?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Sorry Folks
But there is nothing brave about putting words down in the public domain… it is always a foolish thing to do, for by doing so you expose your soft underbelly and the sharks move in. Natural consequence.
You just have to be adroit enough to avoid the attacks, and then maintain your status and credibility under attack, in such a convincing manner that your attackers become your allies, and eventually your friends.
I am glad to see this work out in the open; although I see colossal fault lines everywhere I look, like others I do see honest endeavour and labour.
It is practically poetry.
It is preaching.
But after so much fire I hoped for a spark.
And I got it.
No disrespect to the author intended, for the same thing was said about my own work, and then I took to brandy and radicalism; maybe the author should do the same.
The house that Jack built was not like this.
This is far too complicated - and neat at the same time - and I would have hoped that anybody who had spent time with this subject would have realised that it is simplicity that is the real core.
I feel Glenn is right about the presentation of the piece, it is awfully laboured and pretentious.
I’m not going to comment on the entirety unless the author wants me to.
But good effort.
When the author grows up I think he will make a fine writer.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
"...and then I took to brandy and radicalism"
Seems like a lethal combination if you ask me, AP. 
But you're right: it is poetry and it is preaching. And the Jack house built was certainly constructed on a different foundation than this.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
I can't entirely agree with Andersson. Radka's "psychopathology" sounds a bit academic on the cold page, perhaps, but it has some merit. Comparisons are almost always meaningless, but it's actually quite similar to a case in modern Australia. The introduction of an unwanted in-law into the family circle created the initial "trigger" that led to a series of street killings. The man hated his new mother-in-law and satisfied his rage and frustration in the streets where it didn't directly confront the decorum of the domestic scene. Yes, it sounds a little crazy but the case is in the books. The man's motive became muddled (don't they always?) and a secondary motive became petty robbery to fund a drinking/gambling habit. I think such a domestic disturbance is credible.
I rather like Mr. R's explanation for the Lusk letter. Clever.
It's too early to offer any criticism, but I will say that the murderer's alleged control over the crime scenes is difficult to accept. (I've been accused of poverty of reason, though). The departure from the Imperial Club was haphazard (delayed by rain, in fact) and PC Harvey reported no man loitering at the entry of the passage. My main worry is that matters of chance are being offered up as manipulations of a reasoning mind. RP |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 7:47 pm: | |
The crucial point is, Palmer, were those victims in Australia mutilated, with the mutilations directly targeted against the abdomen and sexual area? Just checking.
If they were, I can accept your comparison. In any case, for me the Whitechapel killings stands as true representatives of the typical sex-motivated lust murder.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 8:21 pm: | |
Glenn--The case in question is the John Wayne Glover case. He was a so-called signature murderer who bashed little old ladies, then strangled them with their underwear. He used their money to go on drinking and gambling sprees. Meanwhile, he was a respectable, friendly and well-liked white-haired grandfatherly salesman around town who was a friend of the mayor. At trial he said the excruciating humilation of having to share a house with his mother-in-law is what started the whole thing. Some of the witnesses (and the profilers) described him as a teen-ager, which helped a great deal in allowing him to continue his rampage. He also ended up by trying to commit suicide and by killing a close acquaintance after always chosing complete strangers. (In short, throw away the text books).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the overall theory, but I have a hard time swallowing that there is some specific pathology that a murderer is supposed to adhere to. The motivations, it seems to me, would be entirely private, muddled, and could well be a combination of rage, lust, avarice, and other impulses. I don't rule out a domestic disturbance.
But hey, my ideas of crime don't come from Hazelwood or Douglass, they come from Dostoyevski and Shakespeare.
By the way, I may be wrong but historical documentation that Aaron Kosminski was insane in 1888 is sorely missing. His first attack was listed as having occured when he was 25---and he was born in 1864/65. A problem for the theorist? RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 24, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Don't worry, Palmer.
It's been quite a while now since I've indulged in profiling, John Douglas and text books. That is history, at least compared to my earlier fascination with it. I have no doubt they described him as a teenager, that would hardly be the only time they got it wrong. After all, what they're dealing with is theory and it seldom works in police cases, at least not on its own merits.
But it's true, one shall never rely too much on accepted facts and guide-lines. Who knows, maybe the truth would surprise us in the end, and maybe the Ripper was a scheming, calculating bugger, not motivated by his urges to kill and mutilate but agression over his declining position in his house-hold and by the love of money. But I wouldn't think so.
Facts remain, profiling or not (I couldn't care less what they say), several case studies show that cases similar to those of the Ripper - where mutilation is involved - have sexual basis or just rage, not complex, staged motives like the ones that Mr Radka describes. We also see these ingredients of lust and perverted needs in several domestic murders.
You're case is interesting, though. The name John Wayne Glover actually rings a bell somewhere. Anyway, he hardly fits the bill for a comparison with the Ripper, as I see it.
Yes, you're right, as far as I know, there is no existing documentation of Kosminski's psychological and physical status (or any other recorded information regarding him) in 1888. It is indeed a problem for the theorist, since there really is nothing of importance to link him to the Ripper murders apart from some notes made by a couple of police officials, written in retrospect.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:33 am: | |
Hey Everyone,
I have just a few things to add. First of all,
David....very interesting paper. It is indeed impressive and shows a tremendous amount of thought and planning. On the other hand....I have to agree with Glenn....I am college educated
and have a minor in English, and I found parts of the paper very difficult to interpret. I had to actually get the ol' Webster's out a few times, I have to admit.
David, you make several great points...but the hardest pill for me to swallow was the part referencing Eddowes face. I find it difficult to believe that the killer would just think on the spur of the moment...."Ok, I was just seen by a witness...Let me make these cuts here, and here...to relay a message to Levy that he needs to keep his mouth shut." If he had it all planned out that well, why did he need 40 minutes to find chalk and a good place to leave the chalk message?
I also had a hard time with the killer convincing Stride to let him be her pimp. Im not sure about the extortion of the reward money either. But other than that, it was a very entertaining read. It is obvious that the paper was well researched and very well written....almost too well. Congrats on that! Best Regards.
Paul |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 719
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 4:31 am: | |
Hi All,
From what I have read and always understood about psychopaths the "muddled motive" scenario is very apt indeed.A trail of completely chaotic motive is more or less the norm
The sexual serial killer side of it has been dealt with thruogh the "fear and hatred" lying underneath his surface love/obsession with mother
[again as I understand it typical psychopathic behaviour].
Leonard Cohen wrote a song about the bitter hatreds that surface "in the kitchen"----especially when the "carving knife" appears.I must dig it out.Apparently it was Kosminski himself who is alleged to have gone for his sister with a carving knife.So it must have been a pretty violent kitchen[mostly "under wraps"].
The Imperial Club was at the very heart of orthodox Jewish activity---next to the Great Synagogue where the habituees of the International[Socialist/almost secular Jewish activists took their giievances on demonstrations with the sweat shop workers.
Therefore he would have been correct to think there would be bound to be one or two late night devotees out and about.It was also on the sme site as the funeral parlour where Kosminski"s funeral eventually got organised.
Psychopathic man wouldnt have needed to "loiter" there he just needed to cross the road from St Botolph"s Church with Kate and walk over towards the club.
I agree the Stride bit is a tough one to swallow.
Natalie |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:05 am: | |
Hi,
I have to say David I found it all rather bafling. I don't know much about the subjects you have written on, psychopaths, Komonski etc. i am personally glad you have put out your theory bcos Now at least we can understand what you are getting at!!!
Your interpretation of ripperologists was certainly interesting (if unflatering) do you class yourself with us.
An alternatative way forward is certainly a clever idea.
I have to now go away and study your arguments in depth.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 36
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:20 am: | |
Congrats, David, on putting this out here for everyone to read after all these years of oblique references to it. This is kind of a milestone.
As far as the theory itself goes, it's not really any worse than many of the competing ones out there. And, like a lot of others, it's long on highly speculative and dramatic explanations for some of the grand mythical mysteries of the case and short on logical reasoning to support the conclusions.
The theories for explaining the Grafitto and facial mutilations on Eddowes were particularly clever. But then I'm a cynic and think that people who look for an imaginatively intellectual explanation for every little thing miss the less dramatic but more reasonable answers.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
E. Rudite
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
You don't need to read further than page two to realise that it's yet another spin on the 'Polish Jew' theory and thus based on several assumptions and subjective opinions. |
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
1. "If the murderer was trying to pin it on Aaron, wouldn't allowing himself be seen by people who could recognize him invalidate that? Why would they back up his story and convict an innocent man, letting the real murderer go free? What would possibly convince them to do this? The reward hardly seems likely--the chance that you will get to witnesses who when confronted by a madman, agreeing to go into conspiracy with that madman, is ..uh..extremely unlikely."
>>You are right it is extremely unlikely. That's why it is pathological of the murderer to believe in it. It is really sheer foolinshness on his part to believe in it. But it is what he WANTS to happen, therefore he entirely believes in it, in fact he is supremely confident that he can attach himself like a leech to the witnesses in this manner. As a psychopath, that is precisely what he has been doing to people his whole life, and he is in fact quite good at it. If you were a fish and all you did was swim all day, wouldn't you be extremely good at and confident in your swimming by now? Keep in mind that the murderer also plans massive fireworks demonstrations immediately after the double event. He thinks the whole of Whitechapel is going to blow sky high, Gentile vs. Jew, Reform Jew vs. Orthodox Jew, Anarchist Jew vs. Capitalist Jew. He believes this will happen because he WANTS it to happen, and is self-ruinously confident that it will. Once his witnesses see the great conflagration amongst their people, he foolishly thinks, they will know not to reveal the murderer to the police, for if they do when they could have declined to simply by saying nothing, the terrified Jewish people of Whitechapel will take it out on them. They'll be blamed, discomfited, harrassed and essentially ruined. Therefore, the murderer foolishly believes, he's entirely safe. That is the murderer's plan. It is a jaw-droppingly terrible plan, but it is his plan. If actual case histories of psychopaths written by psychiatrists, believing with supreme confidence in the efficacy of their whimsically-generated projections to fool others, could be laid one on top of the other, the pile would reach from the surface of the earth to that of the moon.
2. "Your premise is that Levy recognized the killer and remained silent so as not to stir up anti-semitism. But if the goal of the murderer was to have Aaron, a Jew, take the fall, why would Levy or any other witness be willing to identify a false Jewish killer but not the real Jewish killer? In other words, why would Levy remain silent so as not to arouse anti-semitism about the killer, but allow another Jewish man to take the blame, also risking arousing that same anti-semitism. That makes no sense.
>>Levy identified Aaron and allowed him to take the blame all right, but only according to a plan made with Robert Anderson to keep the identification secret. No reactions are aroused in the community because nobody but Anderson knows Levy identified Aaron. And this generally is what both Anderson and Swanson say of the identification. They say the witness wouldn't swear to the suspect because they were both Jews.
3. "Have you actually connected Levy to the Kosminski family in any way or is this just supposition?"
>>Levy is connected to the Kosminski family in virtue of logical opposition, not by supposition. See # 15. "...immediate independent changes of M.O. on the part of the murderer can reasonably be shown to have been reciprocally opposed to (Levy's evasiveness.)" Nothing further from an immediately logical standpoint is required to connect Levy to Aaron Kosminski's family, although the solution in an overarching sense logically depends in all its points on the center as well.
4. "And if Levy's motives were compassionate, i.e. he wanted to remove Aaron from the psychopath's clutches, why not commit the psychopath, not Aaron?"
>>If Levy tells on the psychopath right after the double event, Levy and his family may get clobbered by the Jewish community, so he clams up at that time. If he tells on the psychopath at the identification 19 months later, then he gets arrested by Anderson for not telling on the psychopath after the double event. Fly paper. In addition, Levy was I think in a position to be very little motivated by compassion, but much more by fear and self-interest.
5. "You then say Levy confronts the psycho and the psycho stops...uh, why? He knows Levy saw him, why does it matter that Levy tells him he was seen?"
>>When the psychopath deals with Levy in Duke Street, the psychopath is absolutely confident that Levy will not tell on him, because if he does, Levy's got big trouble in the community. The psychopath SHOULD himself be aware at that moment of 100 reasons why this is a completely unfounded confidence on his part, but, typically for him, what he believes is what he wants. But when Levy confronts him, Levy TELLS him what he's going to do if the psychopath doesn't cooperate, so the psychopath cooperates. In the former case the psychopath is handicapped by his disability, in the latter he has the advantage of factual reality.
6. "...by identifying Aaron, Levy could hardly turn around and say "whoops, I was wrong" should the real killer start killing again so what possible leverage would Levy actually have?
>>The main article of leverage he holds, and never loses, is that he knows who the killer is and can find a way to turn him in, at greater or lesser risk to himself, so that he hangs. The murderer KNOWS this will happen if he starts killing again because Levy told him it would. In Duke Street, the murderer didn't KNOW this.
7. "How do you reconcile the degree of planning that your psycopath apparently experiences when there is no other killer ever known who has defined their killing as anything more than impulse they are unable to control?"
>>Here I feel you really need to read up on psychopaths, Ally. They are capable of detailed planning. Cleckley is best.
8. "If he wanted Aaron out of his life and he had no problem with killing people, why not just kill Aaron?"
>>Probably he couldn't kill Aaron or his significant other and get away with it, because they were both in his family. The origin of the murders is the psychopath being vexed by the admission of an undesirable family member to his household, and, while thereby remaining vulnerable to external suggestion, encountering the excitement caused in the streets by the Mansfield production. This is the 1+1=2 of the solution. Once he does Tabram, he's a sexual serial murderer and off to those races.
Rocky |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 545
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 8:43 am: | |
"The main article of leverage he holds, and never loses, is that he knows who the killer is and can find a way to turn him in, at greater or lesser risk to himself, so that he hangs."
Then why didn't he find a way to do this? Your premise that he absolutely wouldn't turn in the killer for risk of backlash is completely at odds with this statement.
And it just seems too neat and pat that Levy would fall in with the killer's plan to frame Aaron. What possible motivation would there be for this? Why stir up crap 18 months after the killer has stopped? He goes to Anderson, says I know who the killer was and makes this "deal". That could have led to Aaron's family being scrutinized and delved into. No agreement made is going to keep a cop from looking over the evidence and examining the family after the fact.
As for why he didn't just kill Aaron, if the killer could have come up with this convoluted scheme, had himself observed by a member of his own family and yet somehow persuaded that family member to be quiet, then he could have engineered an accident to do away with the loonie of the family thereby eliminating his stressor. He can't be a genius of planning and execution and unable to do this simple task.
I agree that the failure of Anderson's witness to testify could logically indicate that it was a family member, however, what proof was there that Anderson's witness *was* Levy? Or is this the supposition part?
Peace,
Ally
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 8:27 am: | |
Hi All,
I have spent the last fortnight on a search n' destroy mission re, computer threats, and establishing a 'firewall'. I return to the Casebook and, lo and behold, we have an author of a new-ish dissertation setting up a very unscholerly firewall...I am sure David Radka would have something to say about this tactic!
There I was thinking it to be a monster of a 'theoretical possibility' and it turns out to be a sprat! Am I alone in thinking... what a waste of five years thought?
I was sharpening my filleting blade but now I see that what this nonsense requires is a butcher's axe.
[I will not be quoting YOU directly, rather those on the previous boards who discussed some of these same ideas whom you have chosen not to credit]
As Always,
Rosey :-) |
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
"Then why didn't he find a way to do this? Your premise that he absolutely wouldn't turn in the killer for risk of backlash is completely at odds with this statement."
>>Ally, Levy ultimately DID find a way to turn in a proxy Polish Jewish killer without backlash--that is precisely what happened at Hove. By turning Aaron in Levy frees himself from the ongoing depredations of the psychopath, in that the psychopath can no longer use Aaron as a factor in his ongoing instability and reactions. Getting Aaron permanently put away--away from the psychopath--solves Levy's problem. That's part of why Levy did it, combined with the aspect that he needed to get the police permanently out of the picture at the same time. There is no way, however, for Levy to turn the psychopath in without backlash. The psychopath is not insane or unable to speak for himself like Aaron is. After being turned in, there is going to be a typical public court action taken against him. Once the population discovers he's a Jew, as far as Levy knows there's going to be a catastrophic pogrom. Plus, the psychopath can say he's related to or knows Levy, and get Levy into a heap of trouble for not having identified him right after Duke Street.
The whole thing between Levy and the psychopath basically works on the basis of mutually assured destruction. I'm teasing out the respective logical positions for my readers, but the matter must have been a messy one for those involved at the time.
Ally, I do feel that you are pushing yourself too hard absent a solid understanding of psychopathy. The things I write of the psychopath doing are highly typical of psychopaths, as described in good books written about them. Cleckley's 'Mask of Sanity' is the best. The pschopaths there do very much the same sorts of high jinks as the Whitechapel murderer did, as I interpret the case.
Rocky
PS I am happy to respond to all reasonable questions here. Just because I haven't gotten to you yet doesn't mean you're forgotten. I appreciate all thoughtful responses.
DR
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 220
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
David,
What is the factual basis for the situation you posit existed within the family of the "murderer" when Aaron arrived?
Don. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 216
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
This is indeed a milestone. Right up there with sliced bread and multi-angle porn. I have to admit though David, my bowels didn't fall out as advertised. I'll read it in it's entirety in a few moments, I just wanted to say congrats on bringing your idea to the public domain. Finally
crix0r |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
