|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 267
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:21 pm: |       |
David,
I have to say, from reading your posts all over the site I had written you off as an annoying blowhard who just came on the site to piss people off, but you have surprised me by writing a completely ripping (no pun intended mostly) paper.
I don't agree with your suspect, but I don't find your theory any less likely than many I have read over the years.
I'm not going to go through and pick out things I don't agree with point by point, I just wanted to congratulate you on getting this out there.
If this is just the summery, it must be a mighty work indeed.
-K |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 619
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hello David
I am remiss. I note that you do name an individual whom you claim to be similar to your suspect. I have 'The Encyclopedia Of Serial Killers' here before me and I cannot locate a CLeckley. I would be curious to know the details of his serial murders.
All The Best
Gary |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 311
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
David,
Why can I say? I have repeatedly asked you to put your suspect and work out there for all of us to see. You have written a very well researched and quite wonderfully developed dissertation and I commend you for that. I found it very thought provoking and interesting.
However, you still do NOT list a suspect. You have narrowed the field to some sort of relative to Aaron Kosminsky. That's it. No concrete suspect.
With great respect,
Mikey |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 620
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Hi David
Just to clarify my earlier post. Who does Cleckley, whom I note is an author, cite as being a psychopath who behaved in a similar fashion to your suspect.
I must stop skimming the boards while I am working.
All Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Radka wrote: I agree that it is hard to read, and told Mr. Ryder of this during our negotiations. Then why on Earth use such a language in the first place? My first impression when I read such texts is that the author has something to hide, or incomplete facts he or she wants to cover up in an academic mish-mash to fool the reader - a well known method in university circuits.
Radka wrote once more: 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. I never said Fido's theory was great. I said this one was even more complicated.
Radka continues: 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. Yes, that's right - by psychiatrists; that's the key word. Jack the Ripper was a lust murderer; so far I haven't seen any case with a lust murderer of the same mutilating kind as Jack the Ripper performing murders with other "motives" than just compulsion and sexual driving forces. You can drown yourself all you want in psychological, theoretical textbooks, it doesen't matter - ask any police officer on the field with long experience and you will find that some of that stuff is of questionable value. I said earlier, that your mistake is that you don't do this from a police investigation point of view but strictly from a theoretical one.
Besides, it is not scientifically valid to only use two or three sources; if you want to refer to second hand reference works, you need more than that if you want the discussions in your text to be credible.
And Radka wrote again: Before you criticize me, please consider the level of contribution this makes to the study of the case. If you read my post correctly, you would have noticed that I did that and also acknowledged the hard work you seem to have put into it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 726
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
I am still digesting David"s theory which is quite splendid in its originality and scope.
I can see a psycopathic ripper here well enough.
He could as a psychopathic killer have done the whole thing just for the hell of it---because he had got a bit bored and needed some kicks.Aaron from what little we know of him would not have carried on like this for kicks and because of the fragile state of his mind probably would not have een able to sustain them for three or more months.
However there are some more questions but before these the point about the murder of Elizabeth Stride is that I think its a bit convoluted----but I also can believe that this would be just the sort of complicated chaos this "Plausible Rogue" would have beem capable of creating right in the midst of all the other pandemonium he had created ,was about to create and to some extent "still" creates!
As far as the mutilations go I think he would have been perfectly capable of doing all these without blinking---IF it served his greater purpose of making money and mayhem sumultaneously.
As far as his antics stirring the internicine fights erupting between the Berner st and Mitre Square groups, well he would have relished rocking the status quo/causing trouble /adding to the unrest and to have all this as a backdrop to settling his issues with his family and using it to stir a great agglutinated pot of aggro/murder and mayhem, well that too is your psychopath.And he would have stayed cool without a doubt.So I am still of the view that this is a JtR I can believe.
But there are details that do not ring so true:
Why if he was living in either Greenfield Street or Sion square did he head north towards Dorset Street to drop his piece of apron?[I think Aaron"s mother lived up that way in New Street!]
Why indeed would he engage in cryptic markings on Catherine Eddowes face if he was a psychopath I would have thought it unlikely.I could believe that he made the marks because he was a journeyman tailor and such markings were familiar
marks to him so why not?Just part of the preliminary doodling before he got down to ripping mothers reproductive organs out.
In any case how would he know that Levy would recognise them as such and not just "nicks" under the eyes?He would have had to assume Levy capable of deciphering his message unless Levy was a tailor too and Psychopathic man knew that.They are not universal signs of communication after all.
With regards to Mary Kelly you dont tell how or why he chose to enter her room as opposed to her being found in the street.I think this is quite significant.
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 346
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 6:33 pm: | |
Hi David,
Like many who have waited with baited breath for you to present your thoughts, I would like to say I'm quite pleased to see that you've finally done so. I've not had the time yet to go through your presentation with the time and thought it deserves, so I'll refrain from commenting at this time.
Regardless of whether or not I end up agreeing with any, some, or all of your points, I do look forward to considering what you have to say. And after all this time, it's good to see that you are now willing to share the results of your labours. Congratulations, and well done.
- Jeff |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
"Then why on Earth use such a (academic) language in the first place? My first impression when I read such texts is that the author has something to hide or insufficient facts he or she wants to cover up in an academic mish-mash to fool the reader - a well known method in university circuits."
>>Show me where I'm wrong in what I write specifically, please. Don't merely use bigotry to label me as no good. Show me specifically where I've written an "academic mish-mash to hide the facts." Be adequate instead of hyperbolic for once.
copyright David M. Radka 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
"...you still do NOT list a suspect. You have narrowed the field to some sort of relative to Aaron Kosminsky. That's it. No concrete suspect."
>>Logical evaluation of the evidence goes as far as it goes. After that there is only speculation. Speculation is a part of why Ripperology has been such a bankrupt field, full of cranks, for a hundred years. That's why you can have full faith in me to not do it.
I have some ideas on how to make a start on exactly whodunnit from this point. You'd more or less want to get confirmation on where Aaron Kosminski was living during the Terror. Handwriting samples from his relatives to compare to the Lusk letter. Arrest records of his relatives. Life histories of his relatives. Height, weight and physical descriptions of especially Morris Lubnowski and Woolf Abrahams during the Terror. Photographs of same. A better idea of who Aaron's family was, and where they wound up. I'd like to run down the children of Morris and Woolf and their descendants, to hear if any of them remember anything.
And most of all, this is the natural province of Scott Nelson, the best Ripperologist I know. If anyone can enlighten us, he can.
copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
"...your mistake is that you don't do this from a police investigation point of view but strictly from a theoretical one."
>>And the results of using the police investigative point of view for the past century are precisely--what, Mr. Andersson? Book after book of trumped up fiction? No reasonable solution of the case? Science bastardized in the name of profit? Every kind of crankery imaginable? Where has the police investigative point of view produced a credible solution, Mr. Andersson? Show me the book, please. Use the police investigative point of view to tell us all--right now--your comprehensive resolution of all the case evidence. Can you do it? You see my point.
copyright D. Radka 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
"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."
>>This is a colossal misstatement of just about everything I've posted here for the last five years! It is absolutely false. I've said HUNDREDS of times that suspect-based Ripperology is futile. I've never said I had a suspect, or recommended that anyone pursue one. I've repeatedly advised people to pursue a logical solution of the case without a suspect. I've said THAT I HAD THE SOLUTION OF THE CASE! That's what you find in the Dissertations section.
This sort of post brings up the issue of people not being able to follow what the beep I'm talking about in my work on a very basic level. Don't think that I am a traditional, mainstream Ripperologist. Don't default to trying to imagine my solution along the lines of a suspect, history, research, housewives' heartthrobs, science, or any of the other false messiahs of this century-old field. When you read me, you put on your philosophers cap. That's why I called it 'Alternative Ripperology.'
copyright David M. Radka 2004
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
David,
Thank you for addressing my previous post. I do have a rebuttal to your reply regarding the time in between the Eddowes murder and the graffito
writing.
You said that he had to go and find some chalk...wherever...the markets...a store...anyway,
my question is this: If he had the whole double
event planned out like you say,why wouldnt he have just simply brought a stick of chalk with him if he knew he was going to write a message?
Thanks in advance.
Paul
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:52 pm: | |
David, David ...
I didn't say you wrote in a difficult manner to hide inadequate facts - I just said that it's a common method if one wants to do so, as I've noticed several times. But I think it's not necessarily to an author's benefit to use such a high-strung academic language that you can't get through to the reader (note that I am only speaking for myself here, as English is not my first language). I am sure it's well written and that the content is thought through; you obviously show a high standard in your language. But to tone it down a bit is a good thing if you don't want to loose your readers on the way. I don't know your occupation or your age, but I've seen this writing style on several occasions from young university students. It's fine to show that you're well articulate, but what's the point if the message don't get through?
A frustrated Radka continues: And the results of using the police investigative point of view for the past century are precisely--what, Mr. Andersson? Book after book of trumped up fiction? No reasonable solution of the case? Science bastardized in the name of profit? Every kind of crankery imaginable? Where has the police investigative point of view produced a credible solution, Mr. Andersson? Not many of those books you refer to are really written from a police investigation perspective; a majority is just as theoretical, but just in a different way compared your essay. There are a few sensible ones, like Sugden and Rumbelow. for example.
The case will probably never be solved anyway - theorizing with the help of psychology and profiling textbooks won't get you anywhere. They are dealing with theory and academic issues, not reality.
The Jack the Ripper mystery is first of all a murder case, therefore it is logical to use police investigation methods in order to study it, combined with historical and social studies. It doesen't leave any guarantees, and such efforts will probably never solve the case, but neither will yours or anyone elses. But you have made an interesting attempt - some of your findings are quite clever and innovative, and, as I wrote earlier, I believe that some of it will bring new fuel and inspiration to future Ripper investigations. But you haven't catched Jack the Ripper.
All the best from Mr Anderson.
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:56 pm: | |
"And the results of using the police investigative point of view for the past century are precisely--what, Mr. Andersson? Book after book of trumped up fiction..."
Ridiculous and unproven. It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination that the "police method" has resulted in fiction. It can't even be said that the correct case solution hasn't already been published. A simpler solution, for instance, is that Sir Robert Anderson was correct, and Paul Begg was correct, and Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper. It's ridiculous to say this solution is "fiction" or "trumped up" whereas Mr. Radka's solution is.. what... reality?
For all that is being bandied about concerning "Ripperologists" and "Ripperology" it seems fairly clear to me that the A?R theory is really more reverential in regards to the "Ripper lore" than almost any other. In fact, for years David has talked about the 'case evidence' that is available in secondary sources. This is quaint, but is it valid? If one accepts this, than the "case evidence" has become something akin to Holy Writ. Think hard about what this means.
The 'case evidence' becomes an accepted canon of facts that are then manipulated into the most palatable pattern. Is this how truth is determined? What we're really seeing is only a variation of building a 'circumstantial case', except that anything of an evidentiary nature is even more sorely lacking. I hate to sound entirely negative , because some of the best theories are somewhat akin to this approach (Fido's, AP Wolf's, ). I respect someone building a hypothesis and testing it. I don't like it, however, when it is put on some shrine and bowed to as being somehow superior to gum-shoe work. Clearly it isn't. If legal-quality evidence isn't available, is it o.k. or even desirable to construct a made-up case based on constructing what might well be utterly divergent and unconnected "facts" into a whole...?
My question of last night has still not been responded to although I appreciate the fact that David has a full plate. Would it be possible for a theorist to accept the premise of a psychopath and yet build up an entirely different solution using a different canon of "case evidence"? If so, how solid is this 'center'? |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 12:28 am: | |
Hey David,
I am going to have to agree with Glenn here. I speak English and I was quite disappointed in all the big words you chose to use. The majority of those words I have never heard of. I have never even heard any human being use most of those. Those big words took the joy out of your essay.
Really, what are those big words for? Are they supposed to make you sound more sophisticated?
Peter
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 1:03 am: | |
Hey Everyone,
I have to agree with everyone on the difficulty
of the phrasing and the technical wording used.
Some parts were quite difficult to understand.
I have an example: Question 40 text:
"On balance it does not appear that he was univocally motivated by lust or any other single factor to do all he did; if his surroundings are considered in the analysis he appears to have instead demonstrated a fundamental pathological subjective inconsistency of motivation as the external circumstances of life played on him, splitting himself off tangentially as he perceived various opportunities."
Now I dont want to speak for everyone, but, that
is definitely what I would call Technical. Certainly no disrespect intended, because I respect your theory and regard your effort tremendously. Best Regards.
Paul |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 727
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 3:56 am: | |
Hi Paul, I do see your point and accept completely that if a simpler or less technical word or phrase can be used its always better and is liklier to reach a wider audience.
However only this past week I asked for information [on another thread] on whether the term "psychopath" could be used to accurately define a "sexual serial murder" as this would not be typical or frequent behaviour viz a viz a psychopathic individual.The answers were reasonably helpful but the language used was insufficiently precise to be fully acceptable by me.On the other hand the paragraph you quote makes perfect sense after careful thought.It IS rather heavy and technical I agree but it is not vague or imprecise and as a result ,from what I have understood about the chaotic ,mischievous,
erratic,ruthlessly anti -life and anti social behaviour that psychopathic individuals have been recorded as committing, for me anyway David"s take on the ripper makes perfect sense.In short I believe the man who committed the Whitechapel murders would have been capable of all David has suggested in his summary----and more!
Natalie |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Paul, Glenn, Peter,
I agree about the language. I found it very hard to understand some of the work and because of that it makes it less interesting to read. If the language is simpler then it is easier to get into. If people struggle to understand the basics of something then a lot of people won't bother trying to understand it.
Just my view.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
Natalie,
A psychopathic killer can work in many different ways; and psychopaths can indeed act very cunning and deliberate.
But it is how the murders are done that shows of which type of psychopatic killer we're dealing with (if we even can be sure of that is a psychopath to begin with). The very special conduct of the Ripper shown in his signature and the nature of the mutilations shows every mark of a psychopathic lust killer, and - from similar cases we know about - that is something completely different from the type of personality David is describing. They can be quite cunning and clever in parts that involves the disappearing acts, preparations etc., but they are primarily driven to murder and mutilate because they "have to" and because of strange sexual powers and fantasies - not the complex and scheme-type motives David suggests.
There are no easy answers here and it is quite difficult to label people as such and such, but one can't just say "psycopath" and then create a mish-mash of all sorts of psychological components in order to make the character fit ones theory.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 27, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
David,
What I can't work out, and please forgive me if you've covered this somewhere, is why whoever it was went to all that trouble to mutilate all those women in the first place just to frame Aaron. I don't understand why he wouldn't have just killed them as if Aaron was framed properly then he still would have gone down for murder so why all the mutilations?
As I said, if you have covered this and I missed it then please point it out to me. As I already said in another post, I found the language a bit too academic and difficult to understand in places and so I may have missed your explanation of this.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:36 am: | |
Sarah!
I have totally missed it! I see that you have been promoted! Congratulations.
Hmmm... we are becoming quite many Assistant Commissioners here.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
Glenn,
I must have missed that too. I don't remember that happening. Wahoo!! How many posts is it that you need to be Assistant Commissioner then?
To remain on topic, did you understand why, in David Radka's summary, the culprit did all the mutilations?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Sarah,
No, I must admit it remains somewhat of a mystery to me, although there were some attempts of explanations to it in there somewhere. I don't necessarily buy it though - my problem with Radka's "psychopath" is that he don't hold together and seems to be a combination of all sorts of personalities. I don't think it works well enough to convince me.
P.S. I think the boundary for Assistant Commissioner lies somewhere around 1000 or 1001 messages, but I am not sure.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 728
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Hi Glenn,Yes i se your point about the specific mutilations.
My point though was to do with the individual who certainly in the past was labelled psychopath and diagnosed as such by psychiatrists ie not especially a murderer but the individual who without any compunction will kill as a mercenary wherever,steal, lie,create unbelievable trouble
whether it be through lying to get a job,money false identity,fraud, in other words leaves a trail of apparently mindless chaos behind---more or less whereever s/he goes.This actually is what conventionally or traditionally is or always was
until the very recent past labelled psychopathic.
As I said on another post the most famous and most telling description of such an individual is
the "Chain of Chaos".
While I have known of psychopaths who while announcing to their psychiatrist that their mother is someone who is beyond reproach,the most wonderful person in their lives etc will be found after close inspection to have lied stolen from and cheated with their mothers just the same as they do with everybody else.
No for me its the description of a Lust Murderer within the term psychopath that I am new to. indeed as I said on another post I have heard of many cases of such individuals killing for gain or because someone "got in their way" and therefore "had to be bumped off" but unyil recently I had not heard of the term in relation to "lust murderers".
The thing about the psychopath though that distinguishes Him or her most from other categories of criminal behaviour is that they are capable of more or less anything---think Bonnie and Clyde for a famous example and then remember the trail of chaos they left behind.
Natalie |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
"Who does Cleckley, whom I note is an author, cite as being a psychopath who behaved in a similar fashion to your suspect."
>>Cleckley, a psychiatrist, is the best author on psychopathy. He originated serious case studies of these individuals with his landmark book 'The Mask of Sanity.' The solution to the Whitechapel murders, if you know how to look for it, is not so much in Begg nor Sugden nor Evans nor Fido nor the MEPOs, but as much or more in Cleckley. This is probably the single most vital thing I have to say to the Ripperologist. 'The Mask of Sanity' went through many editions, but early copies were available in the 1950s. If any Ripperologist had thought to pick up this book back then, the case would have been solved then.
Cleckley was not a Ripperologist, although in one paragraph he does say that he thinks Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, was a psychopath. ALL of Cleckley's case histories behave in a similar manner to the psychopath who was Jack the Ripper--and his book is the primary source of the personality I offer as the Ripper.
copyright David M. Radka 2004 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
