|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 550
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:45 pm: |       |
David,
Your premise doesn't really hold. Levy had no assurances that the killer would in fact stop. Levy had no assurances that the killer wouldn't get caught in the act thereby unleashing the anti-jewish feeling. Levy had no assurances that the killer wouldn't be caught and then Levy would be exposed as having known all along who the killer was and protecting him, thereby arousing even more anti-jewish feeling, i.e. they cover up the vicious slaughter to protect their own. Levy had more to lose by allowing the killer to go on killing than he did by not.
And you never did answer whether there is any proof either that Levy was related to Aaron, or that Levy was Anderson's witness. One of these must be proven to proceed.
Peace,
Ally
 |
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Ally,
You need to read about psychopathy to proceed.
Rocky |
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
"[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]"
>>This is a most irresponsible statement. My paper is entirely original, and offers several breakthrough intepretations free of charge to the public. The meaning of the Graffitus, the spelling Juwes, the teapot solder, the Lusk letter and kidney, Aaron Kosminski as a proxy, the list goes further and on. They have never been discussed elsewhere.
I nominate Ms O'Ryan's post for deletion, and "her" for disciplinary action.
Rocky
|
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
"What is the factual basis for the situation you posit existed within the family of the "murderer" when Aaron arrived?"
>>Aaron is shown by the evidence as being under the roofs of Morris Lubnowski of Greenfield Street and Woolfe Abrahams of Sion Square at the times of his committments in 1890. Those men were married to sisters of Aaron, Morris to Matilda and Woolfe to Betsy, who were in turn both significantly older than Aaron. A maternal sort of relationship with their brother is plausible for these women, in that they would have been about 10 years old when Aaron was in his very early years, and would thus have been to some extent trained in their maternal responsibilities by practicing on Aaron under the guidance of their mother.
By the evidence, Aaron suffured from paranoid schizophrenia, which is a disease that begins at about 18. The subject gradually but steadily loses his ability to work, function in society, and take care of himself. Thus when these events happened to Aaron, a plausible scenario exists for the sisters feeling a maternal responsibility to offer him some level of relief. Aaron clearly was not in those houses because Lubnowski and Abrahams wanted him there, he was there because his sisters wanted him there.
Aaron may have additionally had other relatives, at which he may have been staying at various times.
No evidence indicates when these arrangements were begun. No evidence indicates where Aaron was during the Terror.
Rocky
|
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 9:22 pm: | |
1. "Also seem to skim over Mary Kelly"s murder which you nevertheless include as being one of his."
>>I included in the Summary those perspectives that are necessary to solve the case. There really isn't a lot in the Miller's Court affair in this regard. This may seem at first hard to swallow to many people, who have gotten used to thinking it was the prime event of the case over the years, mostly based on the spectacular nature of the mutilations. Keep in mind I have a logical work, a solution, not a history of the Whitechapel murders.
2. "You dont explain why he found it necessary to "let rip" in this murder."
>>I'm clear in # 23 as follows: "EXTENT OF MUTILATIONS, AND POSE: Essentially, extensive mutilations were done and the body posed to provoke the greatest possible emotional reaction on the part of the woman or women intended to discover it."
3. "I agree the Stride bit is a tough one to swallow."
>>Why? Please elaborate, and I'll explain it further.
Rocky
|
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
1. "-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?"
>>The murderer took the uterus to possess, triumph over, control, surgically correct and ruin it. He did this because the uterus is the archetypical organ of femininity, and he saw himself at the time in an archetypical conflict with his S.O. concerning her maternal feelings toward her disadvantaged family member. At the same time, the murderer paradoxically wishes also to be controlled by the uterus he takes, in other words to return to the time before the disadvantaged family member came when his S.O. mothered him, and made him the center of her attentions.
The Whitechapel murderer was both a fetishistic lust murderer and an ordinary, non-fetishistic sexual serial murderer, with neither predominating over the other for an appreciable length of time. The evidence indicates fluctuation, inadequacy, quick shifts, muddledness, erraticalness, inconsistency and going off on tangents as a part of his motivations.
Rocky |
Rocky
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
"...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."
>>My theory involves very little speculation, I think. Please responsibly and clearly list a few items you consider speculative, and I will show how the speculation is overcome by logical oppositions. Remember, I offer my theory as a piece of logic having an epistemological center, not as history or as research. I alone among Ripperologists am solving the case by philosophy, and one needs to get oneself up to the level of the abstractions being used in order to evaluate it. If you can't show how my work as an epistemologist is "highly speculative and dramatic," then I believe that as the author of 'Ripper Notes' you need to admit as such.
Rocky
|
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 9:39 pm: | |
1. "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."
>>What I've given you is the Summary, not the Thesis. The Summary is never going to win any literary awards; it is supposed to be a compendium of the logical position, nothing more. I agree that it is hard to read, and told Mr. Ryder of this during our negotiations. If the Thesis is read first, then the Summary, the Summary is a good way to refresh the mind of the logical arguments involved.
2. "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."
>>My theory is an improvement over that of Mr. Fido because it enables Robert Anderson to be taken seriously while allowing Aaron Kosminski to be the identified suspect. This is the fatal flaw in Mr. Fido's argument. Aaron's unsuitability as a suspect--because of his not being the sort of person who would commit the Whitechapel murders, is vindicated. Before you criticize me, please consider the level of contribution this makes to the study of the case.
The idea that my theory "...goes against much of the facts we know about psychopaths who perform these types of mutilated murders" is pure balderdash, and shows an utter unfamiliarity with psychopathy. I wrote my case solution with Cleckley's and Hare's books at my elbow, after studying the field thoroughly for seven years. My psychopathic suspect is very similar to the psychopaths studied by psychiatrists.
Rocky
|
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
"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?"
>>Well, he's got to find a piece of chalk at about 2:00AM Sunday morning, perhaps not an easy thing to do. Not many stores would be open then, plus he wouldn't want to buy it in a store anyway, what with the clerk remembering his appearance. Maybe he went near the Spitalfields market and looked for pieces in the curb--they used a lot of chalk there to write prices on blackboards. He might have tried in a schoolyard. It is interesting to speculate that he was a tailor himself and went to his own shop or home to get tailor's chalk--since tailoring symbols are used on the face of Eddowes. Note that Woolfe Abrahams was a journeyman tailor. In any event, getting the chalk likely was not a straightforward matter for him under the circumstances, and this is a point to consider in solving the case.
Rocky
PS There are many more questions I'm eager to respond to, and will do so tomorow. I will respond to every reasonable concern, and appreciate your patience. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:37 pm: | |
I'm not particularly interested in arguing the specifics of this theortetical "solution", I'm more interested in the merits of the approach. Is this really a radical departure, an advance in how to think about the case? Personally, I am left with the same misgivings I've always had when hearing Mr. Radka discuss his methodology.. It seems to me that center---that the the killer is a psychopath--is far too soft and mushy to allow anyone to confidently identify what consistutes the actual "case evidence." So let me pose a question. Wouldn't it be possible for another theorist to fully accept the main "center"--ie., the premise of a psychopath---and yet build up an entirely different explanation with a different catalogue of what constitutes the 'case evidence' and even come up with a different solution? (Ie., might the theory include MacKenzie but dissmiss Stride?; accept the "Dear Boss" but refute the Lusk letter?) It seems to me that answer is "yes." And if the answer is "yes", how can the methodology claim that it leads to determining the truth of what really happened in 1888-1891? I think it is legitimate to criticize the theory on this point, because it goes out of its way to claim it is a bold departure. I don't see it living up to these claims, but am, of course, willing to hear a rebuttal. RP
P.S. I don't find your Hove explanation is satisfying. London was the largest city in the world. There were a thousand and one places in London for a covert witness parade. I can't believe this is the correct explanation of why it went down in Brighton.
Also, as I stated above. Where exactly was the murderer waiting for the men to depart from the Imperial Club? They stated at the inquest that their departure was dependent on the rain fall ending. It had been delayed. But the PC was passing the entry to Church Passage ever 10- 12 minutes or so. How did Kominski's relative position himself correctly? How did he insure a prostitute would be there? I don't find it credible. Even if every chosen detail can be meticulous in its logic, might not the theory as a whole remain somehow soul-less because it is too far removed from how humanity operates?
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 25, 2004) |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:29 am: | |
Glad to finally read about your solution to the case. I think it's a pretty interesting one and it brings up alot of good points. Good work.
Chris 
|
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 42
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
David,
"If you can't show how my work as an epistemologist is "highly speculative and dramatic," then I believe that as the author of 'Ripper Notes' you need to admit as such."
I already gave two examples: the graffito and Eddowes' facial mutilations. Your explanations are clever, but I can't see how you can come to them without being highly speculative. The codes, meanings and motives you see there don't have supporting steps to show how you came to those conclusions.
"Dramatic" is a subjective but fair term to describe your theory, based upon the complex motives you believe led to the killer's actions.
Just for the record, I'm not the author of Ripper Notes, as my job is more to organize other authors and get their articles printed and distributed. I will be doing some writing here and there but not the bulk of it by any means.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 552
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
David,
No, I don't need to read about psychopathy to proceed because I am not asking you any questions about your psychopath. I am asking you questions about Levy.
Or are you now suggesting that Levy was also a psychopath?
And have you proven either that Levy was for certain Anderson's witness or
that Levy was for certain related to Aaron.
One of those must be a given for your theory to even begin to be in the slightest bit credible, otherwise all you have are series of assumptions, piled on assumptions.
And in the future, it would probably be best not to suggest that we are too ignorant to understand what you mean. If there is documented evidence of previous sexual psychos, who were also while getting off their jollies, creating these grand and elaborate race war schemes (or any other grand elaborate schemes) around their crimes, why not just point them out and say, read about so and so.
Peace,
Ally
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 558
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
Having just completed David's thesis, which I read through several times in order to be sure I had thoroughly digested it, I will leave detailed comment until I have had time to think the thing through fully.
I would add my congratulations, however, on a theory which has the merit of covering and explaining the known facts. In my own research I have read many wildly speculative theories. This one I find far less wildly speculative than most.
On the other hand, I have always had difficulty in believing in a Ripper with a dastardly plan, and this is the fall-down of the theory for me. He comes across as way too Hannibal Lector-ish.
Nonetheless, I feel it necessary to afford David a great deal of respect and admiration for his solution, and if this is merely the Summary then I look forward to hopefully one day reading the Thesis itself. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
David,
Well done mate. You have obviously put in a lot of hard work and study. For that you have my respect.
Its just that Im very wary of authors who use labyrinthine phrases. There is no need to hide..... (The Thesis provides a common language setting for the arguement).....see ?
As for the theory. Ive heard worse, a lot worse. Some areas work for me, some do not. As someone who is more 'interested' in the mechanics of this killer the theory can be here or there for me. The positioning of the witnesses by the killer would take alot of work and surely some trial and error.
Im still trying to digest it though so perhaps I should re-read it before making any more comments on it.....it wouldnt be fair if I didnt.
Again, Well done.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
Just for the record, posts historically made to this web site in the names of Saddam, Bullwinkle, Rocket J. Squirrel, David Radka, and David Cohen Radka were made by David M. Radka of Newington, Connecticut USA. I got used to pseudonymns when the web site started telling me my name was too close to that of David Rhea to be accepted. I should stick to my real name for legal purposes in the future.
David Radka
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
"No, I don't need to read about psychopathy to proceed because I am not asking you any questions about your psychopath. I am asking you questions about Levy."
>>This is a big mistake, Ally. Levy is in a phenomenological opposition with a psychopath, that's my whole point. He's learning about psychopathy as he goes along, and his actions reflect that. There is no interpreting Levy with out a solid knowledge of psychopathy, therefore. I'm not going to answer you further until you've shown that you've read and understood Cleckley or Hare.
copyright David Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:47 am: | |
"Your explanations are clever, but I can't see how you can come to them without being highly speculative. The codes, meanings and motives you see there don't have supporting steps to show how you came to those conclusions."
>>Mr. Norder: Please define what you mean by your terms "speculation," "meanings," and especially "supporting steps." I believe my logical analysis sticks very closely to the evidence, closer than the offerings of any previous Ripperologist. My solution turns on logical oppositions that I can overtly state in response to specific questions. Because the Summary is a concise compendium, it may not include all the logical oppositions you need to see to understand various points. But if you will kindly tell me on exactly what point you seem to be stuck, I can unstick you. Please don't say "the graffitus" or "the Lusk letter"--these are huge areas with many oppositions involved. I wouldn't know which oppositions you are not able to pick up. Take a look at the size of the explanations I have for these in the Summary. You could devote half your lifetime to either one if you didn't know what you were doing.
I believe you are mixing your modes of thought. Ripperologists are so used to reading purported solutions based on 1)history and 2)research that they may unconsciously think that a writer must have taken historical and research-oriented "steps" in order to generate his conclusions. You are looking for these kinds of "steps" and not finding them. The "steps" may merely be an impediment in your mind. As I have said, mine is a logical, analytical work--it adds no new evidence, I used only secondary sources to learn about the case, its strength is new perspectives.
Anyone who knows nothing about the kind of idealist logical work that got started on the continent beginning in the 18th century--Kant, Nietzsche, Schelling, Hegel, etc., may have some initial difficulty imagining where I'm coming from. I can get a rough, preliminary sense of this in several of the questions that are asked above, especially by Ally. The Summary is admittedly too brief a document to get such a person caught up enough, and being a logical sort, I may not have the right kind of imagination to bridge the gap myself. So please indicate your reservations in specific language, so that both I and the readers of 'Ripper Notes' can understand just where you stand.
copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 218
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Hello David -
I have lots of things to address, many of which I will in due course and at a later time. Bearing in mind that this is a summary and not a thesis or a book, I have some initial questions.
You've told me and many other members of the board on numerous occasions that you had a suspect. That it was one person (and that when we found out our bowels would fall out hehe, I still like that one).
So, when I began to read your summary, I was eager to finally see who your suspect was. I then read this under No. 2 of your summary:
"According to the evidence, therefore, likely either Woolf Abrahams or Morris Lubnowski committed the crimes. If neither, then another member or in-law of the greater Kosminski-Lubnowski-Cohen family did"
Now, to me that sounds like you either don't have a suspect, or are attempting to cover all your bases. After wading through your posts from the last few years (go casebook CD) and reading your summary, I am a bit taken aback by the fact that you still do not name a definite suspect, when all this time you lead on like you had one.
Have I read this incorrectly? Do you name a definite suspect and I was simply to sleepy when I read the summary or just plain ol' missed it?
I'll continue further after you post your answer. Since there may or may not be a delay because you are unregistered and Stephen is a busy man :P
crix0r
P.S. You could have fixed that whole "my name is to close to David Rhea" problem if you had registered, I believe.
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 219
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
Hello Again David -
For clarification and to avoid misunderstandings, I do not wish to start a litigious battle. I wasn't sure of your definition of "Significant" so I decided to quote a small portion of your text for illustration of my question.
If this is something you wish I did not do, then I apologize. Let me know what your feelings are so that I don't cross over a line.
crix0r |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 556
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
David,
Sounds like a cop-out to me. I have asked you very simple questions.
1. Have you actually made a connection, either to Levy as Anderson's witness or to Levy as Aaron's relative.
Reading Cleckley or Hare will not provide me with that answer.
2. What possible motivation would Levy have for doing what you say he did?
Reading Cleckely or Hare will not provide me with that answer.
Hare states quite clearly that psychopath's do not reveal their darker nature to the victims of their manipulations until the person is sucked in deeply to the psychos "web". Therefore, since Levy would have started out with a full awareness of the psycho's nature having seen him slaughter someone, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he would have been drawn in to the "web".
Your instance that we have to read dry academic texts before you will deign to answer our questions reflects more on your lack of answers than on anything lacking in our understanding.
You have failed to make your case convincingly. You are being given an opportunity to elaborate. Do so, or don't. But don't blame us that you have failed to be convincing.
Regards,
Ally
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 222
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
David,
Thank you for answering my question. As you said, it is a "plausible scenario" and the operative word there is scenario. What you have done is compose an outline for a novel or screen treatment of Jack the Ripper. Interesting and inventive in parts, but as often happens with early efforts at fiction it is rather contrived and presents a blinkered view of life.
You wrote that "Aaron clearly was not in those houses because Lubnowski and Abrahams wanted him there,..." [emphasis added], but that declaration may say more about you than it does about either gentleman and suggests a truncated appreciation for the dynamics of marriage and extended families. That the two gentleman were loving and caring and willing to accept the burden of a troubled brother-in-law is no less plausible and examples of that behavior abound.
You did tailor a theory to many of the facts rather than the other way round, but as RJ argued any number of different scenarios could be constructed to satisfy those facts and, despite all your verbiage and academic jargon, your tale is no more convincing than those possibilities and in many instances it is much less so.
That said, thank you for finally sharing and good luck.
Don. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
David,
I can see you have put a lot of effort into this work and it certainly shows. Well done on that.
I must admit, I do not agree with you, especially in regards to the markings on Kate's face. I'm presuming these are your interpretations of the markings only. How would Levy know what these markings meant anyway?
I admit, I have not read it all through thoroughly but this is something I am very confused about.
Also, sorry if this is a stupid question, but what would have made the killer think that Levy would even have seen her face?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 618
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Hello
I am glad to see that Mr. Radka has finally presented his thesis.I would be be even more delighted if Mr. Radka could point to a similar case in the history of serial sexual or lust murder.
I recall that Mr. Radka has repeatedly stated that the solution is right under our noses and we only require the 'b*lls' to put this so called apparent solution together ourselves. IMHO the 'solution' is rather convoluted to say the least and the previous comments by Mr. Radka were misleading.
Nevertheless I applaud Mr. Radka for finally putting his solution forward and subjecting his theory to the intense scrutiny that it will receive on these boards.
All The Best
Gary
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Dear MR RADKA,
"Irresponsible". "Deletion". "Disciplined". Golly!
OK. I will put away my axe...for I have a more cunning plan. I will set Ally onto you :-)
I am not impressed by your belated appeal to Hegel in this matter. Karl Marx demonstrated the fatal flaw in Hegelian dialectics when he wrote that Hegel "pulled things from Nothing by the roots of the hair...and declared them to be just so". I charge you with the same. Anyway, never mind all this high falutin' talk...Ally knows this gambit without your Schellings and Hegels being invoked.
Simply put: you posit your favourite suspect, then belatedly built this superstructure of nonsense about it...just like Hegel, eh?
If you fail, fallback to the crazy Jewish suspect
and blind 'em with textbookology!
MR RADKA, I am not alone in being disappointed.
Rosey :-)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
