|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:05 am: |       |
Hi. I also want to congratulate you on some interesting food for thought. I don't necessarily agree with your theory, but I think there might be some elements of truth within it that should perhaps not be dismissed.
Regarding the writing style which many have mentioned: I don't think it's a matter of vocabulary, but sentence construction. Government pamphlets are written this way. I had to read a few sentences several times to find the verb. Active sentences would be more clear. That aside, congratulations.
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
The thing I find, and I don't mean this in a horrible accusing way, but since David hasn't actually named a specific suspect I feel that it is a way of making it so we can't say, "well, no because so-and-so was here", or be able to try to find evidence against the suspect in question.
I'm not saying he did this on purpose by any means, I also think it was interesting that he looked at the case without thinking of a suspect first. Although, to come up the idea that Aaron was being potentially framed must have come from somewhere.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Maria Giordano
Police Constable
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
I agree with Kelly about the convoluted sentence structure. Some of the vocabulary,too,was unnecessarily technical. I don't see this as an attempt to fool anyone so much as a very common habit of trying to establish authority by using this style of writing. Unfortunately, it did make the paper frustrating to read, if not imcomprehensible in places.
Glenn, I am a native (American) English speaker with a Masters degree and had as much trouble with it as you probably did. What a shame- I've been looking forward to reading this for a long time.
Let me also point out that the books cited are not scholarly texts, but popular nonfiction written for the lay person and available at most public libraries. I have read both Cleckley and Hare;in fact I've read Hare several times and have it in my collection.
Let me make the point that not all -or even most- psychopaths are killers.
Some questions and comments, Mr. Radka:
What does "fronting" mean as in question 6 "fronting variously Edward Hyde and Dr. Henry Jekyll"?
In question #7 are you saying that the killer was aware of and jealous of the play that was being done in the West End? You say that the bodies were "dislayed in the streets as theatre-goers left following the performance". Of course none of those theatre goers were anywhere near where the actual Ripper victims were displayed. What is your point here?
Quesation #11- Levy was a butcher,according to the A-Z. Why would the killer communicate to him in the "language" of tailors and expect him to understand it? I question your use of the term "universal" in characterizing the meanings of the eye, the blush,etc.
Question #11 Discrete removal of the apron... Do we know that exactly half the apron was taken? It seems only recently that on this board we were talking about the piece of apron being bigger than a scrap. Where is the size of the piece of apron found in Goulston St. documented?
Question # 16- was there ever anyone who claimed a reward or made significant profit at the time of the killings?
Question # 21- How would the psychopath know about the stage Irish accent? Did people of his class ever to to stage productions (aside from Jewish or Yiddish theater)?
Lastly, thank you for finaly postin this. At last we have something to talk about.
Mariag |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 220
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
Stephen: I've tried to be nice as long as I can. If this post is over the line, please let me know so that I won't do it again. I don't _think_ it violates anything other than grammar rules and sentence structure :P
David -
I dislike having to correct people. It tends to makes me look like an arrogant a**. Something I'm not very fond of. However, in your case It appears like I must simply to keep this conversation in check. Keep in mind that I really, really didn't want to have to do this, but your arrogance has left me no choice.
To say that you have the solution indirectly implies that you have a suspect (in this instance). Like it or not, that's a fact. If I say that I have the solution to all the riddles of the universe, most people would expect me to present it, not present what I feel is the 'most likely path' to achieving it. When I didn't deliver, I'd be publically torn apart, similar to how you are being torn down.
Allow me to provide you with some examples of you 'leading on' like you have a suspect since you can't seem to remember (you'll note that I did not claim you had a suspect, only that you lead on like you did. And you claim I don't understand you??). Click the word "here" in the next 3 paragraphs.
Here you imply that you have a suspect, by implying that your theory will provide an answer. You say that when we find out who it was, we'll be so flabbergasted that we just won't know how to contain ourselves. This implies that you know who the killer was, and you know his name. It appears that in the end, you don't really have a suspect. All you really have is a smattering of facts, a little supposition and a droves of creative interpretation.
Here you claim that there is nothing ritualistic about the murders. Then in your summary you go into almost painful detail about what appears to you to be markings akin to what a taylor would be familiar with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most folks would define cutting symbols into a freshly rotting corpse at the very least 'ritualistic'. Taylor-esque, black magic, biblical or otherwise. Even though by dictionary definition, it may not be. Keyword here is "most".
Here under number 2, you imply that you have a suspect by saying that we should know his name.
Shall I continue? The boards are riddled with your opinions, contradictions and suppositions. Your opinions can be valued. Your contradictions and suppositions are a little harder to swallow. You know as well as I do that you are attempting to build a very complex thing, but your fundamental parts are severely flawed.
You mentioned that people can't really follow along with you and your thought process. I think the above vividly illustrates why. In a nutshell: You seem to think that we all have the IQ rivaled only by garden tools and treat us accordingly. You do not address issues that are detrimental to your 'theory' and you have a general bad attitude towards just about everyone except for Stephen. $10 bucks says you won't respond to everything I have said or asked, and selectively pick what best suits you. This is why I think that most people (from what I can tell) ignore you and your ideas/opinions. On this occasion though, it's your theory and your butt on the line. So you better put up or shut up.
I'd also like to state that I do not like negativity. Who does? I attempt to get along with everybody. As most of you will attest, I'm normally very laid back and easy going. However, I have very little patience for foolishness. I have even smaller amounts of patience for people who sit on high and proclaim me and my co-posters stupid (in a very round about way).
When you insult a group of people you are just ASKING to have your sticky buns handed to you. Verbally or otherwise. Most people refer to it as 'picking' a fight and it's a really good way to get your sticky buns handed to you in real life. This is a message board, however, so perhaps you feel a little over confident since you aren't face to face with any of these people.
Remember that the truth shall set you free. The truth here is that you are no closer to anything than any more of us are. Because as I said many moons ago if you were, you'd be published, rich and laughing all the way to the bank. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you wouldn't have behaved the way you have over the last few months. To me, your behavior dictates that you aren't to be taken seriously.
crix0r |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
In a nutshell: You seem to think that we all have the IQ rivaled only by garden tools and treat us accordingly.
Jason you are so right!!!
I think that the above is a fab quote to rival the previously mentioned one about guts falling out.
well done for saying what a lot of us were thinking!!!!! (so i gather, but speak for myself!!)
bravo!!! 
Cheers
Jennifer D. Pegg
 |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
David,
Mind a little constructive criticism? If you believe the Eddowes facial mutilations are markings a tailor would have used, some illustrations would be helpful so we can see what you mean. If you're unable to secure permission to reproduce photographs, you can always visit a tailor and take your own (and their reaction to the mutilations would be interesting to read about, too).
If I'm reading you correctly, I'm not sure the Ripper would have had Lusk specifically in mind when he took Kate's kidney (if that's what you're saying). It's my impression that Lusk didn't become a major figure in the press until after the Double Event. There was plenty of reward talk before in the papers, but I don't think Lusk really started pushing until October.
Don't take my word for that, though--I might be wrong.
Liked your take on the symbols below Eddowes's eyes--I also think they were meant to draw attention to the eyelids, and aren't upside down "V's". I disagree with your final interpretation--but so what? It's a subjective area.
Thanks for sharing your article.
Dave
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
"Let me also point out that the books cited are not scholarly texts, but popular nonfiction written for the lay person and available at most public libraries. I have read both Cleckley and Hare;in fact I've read Hare several times and have it in my collection."
>>What Ms Giordano says is not true. The Cleckley and Lykken books cited are scholarly books, not layman-oriented books. Cleckley was the world's pre-eminent psychiatrist concerning psychopathy, and 'The Mask of Sanity' his principal work. Hare was a disciple of Cleckley. I agree the particular book of Hare I cited probably would be considered layman-oriented. Get the books and see for yourselves. In view of these misstatements, I'd take what she says with caution--I will be responding to her other points later.
Jason Scott Mullins is a busybody, making no legitimate points about anything. He has an extremely immature habit of forcing himself on others, in this case me. That he has no backup whatever for what he says is not a part of the equation as far as he's concerned.
Need to get back to work.
copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
1. "It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination that the "police method" has resulted in fiction."
>>My sense was truncated by a deceptive cutting of my quotation here. I said more than that the police method had resulted in fiction. Please have the common decency to cite me honorably.
Balderdash in any event. Show us where any profiling, research, police or historical method has provided a satisfying solution to the case. Right now, show us.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 8:01 pm: | |
"...you can always visit a tailor and take your own (and their reaction to the mutilations would be interesting to read about, too)."
>>I can't visit a tailor in 1888 Whitechapel. Tailor's symbols aren't the same everywhere. Basically the group of tailors working in a given workplace agree on what various symbols mean, and that's that. Some are pretty universally obvious, like "open this flap" and "look at this," some aren't. It's like accountant's workpapers. One CPA firm has their specified order, numbering scheme, etc., and another has another. Different workplaces have different symbols.
copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
Vulcan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 8:02 pm: | |
Mr. Radka, after years of claiming to have 'solved the Whitechapel Murders', has, in the final analysis, failed to present a convincing case against...well...ANYONE! Just imagine if Police Departments or Courts of Law were allowed to use Mr. Radka's definitions of 'solved' and 'evidence'. Mr. Radka, countless times, had claimed the 'solution' was right under our noses, all along.
So, in the end, it was just your run-of-the-mill, drunken Jewish psychopath (with a talent for Irish accents) who externalized his rage against a smothering maternal authority figure by butchering prostitutes, apparently while intoxicated, but like a good Jewish boy, not so intoxicated as not to notice a good business opportunity when it presented itself. The classic, lust filled, but not too lust filled, greedy blackmailing alcoholic religious paranoid; a one-man-show, anarchist, extortionist, mama's boy.
How did we miss him all these years? And the killer IS? Well, it can't be Kosminski because that would mean someone else 'solved' the case. So it appears the 'center' of the case is not psychopathy after all, but rather Mr. Radka's need to 'claim' originality. This explains why he wouldn't work co-conspirators into his theory: their name might have been mentioned by someone else. That's a hell of a way to solve a murder.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 8:06 pm: | |
"It's my impression that Lusk didn't become a major figure in the press until after the Double Event."
>>Doesn't matter. Lusk was writing letters and leading his vigilance group for some time. If the murderer knew what was going on in Whitechapel, then he knew about Lusk.
copyright David M. Radka 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
"..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."
>>Please show us specifically where I'm doing this, Mr. Andersson. I think my psychopathic character very closely fits the evidence--after all, I'm able to comprehensively resolve the whole of the evidence using nothing more than psychopathy. I don't add anything to the recipe' but the well-documented characteristics of psychopaths you can find immediately in Cleckley. I am adding NO "mish-mash of psychological components" beyond that. I believe your problem is that you are simply ignorant of the personality components that psychopaths actually do have, per psychiatry. This lack of knowledge is what leads you to theorize a simple lust murderer to fit the evidence, per what you call the "police method." You essentially just haven't heard yet what such lust murderers can come equipped with.
Police are interested in investigations of evidence that can at least theoretically be interacted with. In other words, even in a cold case some new evidence, new DNA tests, or similar information may become available. But we can't be policemen with respect to the Whitechapel murders. All we can do is, basically, academic work. There is no possibility to interact with the evidence on our part. All we can do is play with perspectives, trying to fit the right ones together to get comprehensiveness. This, I am coming more to think by the nature of the above responses, is not only frustrating but frightening to many people. I and a few others appear to be the only ones not afraid of this kind of thing.
PS All--April 30 is a big deadline day for accountants in the US--payrolll tax returns are due. This is why the comments are running ahead of the responses at this time. But don't fear, I will absolutely get to everyone. (Mr. Palmer has a particularly good point pending.)
copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 8:38 pm: | |
1. "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!]"
>>Others reading the Summary should take note of Natalie Severn. Natalie has made a serious study of psychopathy, and thus she is well able to pick up on what I say. Most of the other posters have not, and are wandering in the wilderness. So I recommend again, what you all need do if you want to understand the solution of the Whitechapel murders is study thoroughly the works of the three psychiatrists named in my question # 1, Cleckley preferred. Spend 2-3 months of your spare time learning this challenging and paradoxical subject. It will be well worth your while.
In response to Natalie's question: The graffitus was placed where it was to cause maximum disruption to the Jewish Street Market set to begin right on those coblestones shortly. Don't believe in the existence of Aaron's mother tenanted in New Street, as Sugden does. No records anywhere establish her immigration to Britain. Aaron arrived on the boat with his sisters, not his parents.
2. "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."
>>He made the marks on Eddowes' face because he wanted to communicate to Levy and his two friends, essentially to Levy. To a normal person, the liklihood of this communication passing through to the right people and being understood by them in the way he intended is extremely remote, but our psychopath is pathologically confident they'll pick up the message. This involves, fundamentally, the pure projection of his infantile ego outward. He is supremely confident he will get what he wants because he wants it. Please keep in mind that in 1888 Whitechapel most clothes were made by tailors, thus there were very many tailors, and many people often pinch-hit as tailors. As a result, tailoring symbols would be familiar to a large percentage of the population.
3. "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."
>>In the Miller's Court Affair, the murderer essentially wants to pick the type of person who discovers the prostitute's body. In all the other cases he leaves the body on the street or otherwise out in the open, and the first passerby (worker, police constable, etc.) finds it. But this time the whole point of the murder is that a sister prostitute who knows the murdered woman finds it, and further that she finds it under the most immediately horrifying circumstances, and further that she finds it at a particular time. Therefore the big hearth fire to attract attention, the whistling teapot to do the same, the pose, the most horrific and complete mutilations. What she is supposed to do when she looks into the window and sees her friend in this condition is soil her underwear, scream bloody murder, shoot through the entrance of Miller's Court like a thoroughbred through the gates on Derby Day, and ignite the hundred thousand unemployed crowding the district for the Lord Mayor's procession. Once this happens, the mounted peacekeepers sent by Sir Charles Warren will do the same as they did under similar circumstances exactly one year before in Trafalgar Square, and the result will be many deaths and a massive public outcry for a big reward.
Regards, Natalie!
copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 8:31 pm: | |
Overall:
1. Basically, if you are the one who solves the Whitechapel murders, then every little petulant immature sack of succotash out there is going to take their shot at you. Lots of people aren't going to be able to handle the basic fact that David Radka solved the Whitechapel murders and they didn't. I knew this was going to happen, and am resolved to live out the rest of my life with this on me. While these folks may fire away, I don't like thugs and will fire back at that group. Those few know who they are.
2. Some people seem to be hanging onto the idea that since any work on the Whitechapel murders must be an historical, research, or empirical-type work, therefore if they just keep asking me questions about what "steps" I took before I made such and such a point, or what facts on file I have backing up this or that, sooner or later my theory will cave in as speculation. Now, I have a limited amount of researchy-historical elements in my work, but not many. The interpretation of "Juwe" is one, the tailoring symbols is another I guess, there are a few others. MOST of what I write is not history or research, but re-description. I'm redescribing the connections of all the pieces without adding any or many new pieces. I'm using a kind of compass to do that, and my magnetic north is psychopathy. What I'm looking to do is predicate all that happens in the case under the rubric of psychopathy. Psychopathy becomes the subject of our sentence, everything else the predicate. It seems to me some people think I'm trying to hide obvious flaws in the sense of a lack of or contradictory research, but you can't make sense out of my work by reading it that way. I feel sorry for these people, and wish I could help them. They seem for the most part to be the older set here.
copyright David M. Radka 2004
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 223
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:44 pm: | |
All,
You have to think "Wizard of Oz" when considering modern academic writing (or imitations thereof). You know, smoke, mirrors, reverberation effects and everything else to hide the fact that the Wizard and his pronouncements were lacking in substance. At one time, academics peppered their papers with Latin and Greek to separate themselves from the masses, but since the Classical languages are now dead to them as well, they resort to jargon and leaden prose to achieve the same effect.
Marie is right that such writing can be intended to intimidate and Glenn is right that it is often used to disguise the fact that, as Gertrude Stein said in a differert context, "there is no there there." Whether either or both of those possibilities apply to the essay under discussion (or that it was simply clumsily constructed in all innocence) is up to the readers to decide.
Anyone who wants to communicate an idea he or she considers important, however, should always strive to do so in a clear, concise manner. Lincoln's address at Gettysburg is a good example: short, to the point and yet quite moving and not without a few rhetorical flourishes.
Don.
A professional writer, but one who nevertheless -- in the longtime spirit of these boards -- gives free and full use to any pearls someone might discover in my posts. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 11:18 pm: | |
David,
Sure, it's very plausible, even likely, that the Ripper knew of George Lusk in September. But if he's truly thinking of him the night of the Double Event, why wait two weeks to drop off his package? I'm assuming Lusk's business would have been freely available in a directory.
My opinion is that he wouldn't have--because Lusk was a non-factor until he began receiving some serious publicity around the middle of October. Consider that it's not the WVC that's got the Ripper irked--it's the publicity the WVC is getting (via Lusk). For the sake of argument, I'm assuming the letter was from the murderer of Catherine Eddowes, something which I have an open mind about.
Interesting about the tailoring symbols being different. If as you say, some are universal--images of these are what I suggest you use, if you ever revise. As a reader, the comparison falls a little flat for me--not because I necessarily disagree, but because I'm not familar with these symbols and so don't know what you mean. As the author of A.R., it's your job to guide me.
For those symbols that were exclusive to 1888 Whitechapel, how did you come to make the comparison? I understand you're attempting a new approach, but in order to compare symbols, you must have had some frame of reference to make the connection in the first place.
Dave |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 223
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 1:24 am: | |
David -
So many things I'd like to say, so little space in which to say them. I think I'll simply say this: If you want to run about claiming that you've solved the case, so be it. That's your prerogative.
I wish you the best of luck in this and all your future endeavors. I'm done with this thread.
crix0r |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 731
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 3:35 am: | |
David,thankyou for the compliment.I do know a little about psychopathy as I have worked with same.This was in the Art Therapy dept in a large hospital for people who had various mental health problems.I also did make a study of this as part of an extended study in my teaching practice.
A memory of one or two of these individuals was their charm and ability to persuade!
All the Best Natalie |
James D. Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diomedes
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 4:17 am: | |
Hello Natalie,
I see your name on these boards all the time and assume you are very knowlegable on the Whitechapel murders. I have tried to imagine the mind of Jack the Ripper and what I see is a manic deppressive personality and a sociopath as well. People suffering from mental conditions can display a cocktail of deviations in their personality
Sincerely
Jim Smith |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1070
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:03 am: | |
David,
I notice your haven't answered any of my questions.
I also think it is very arrogant of you to say that Lots of people aren't going to be able to handle the basic fact that David Radka solved the Whitechapel murders and they didn't.
From what I can see all you have written is supposition and also the basic fact that you haven't even said who supposedly committed these crimes at all as you so often suggested you knew.
Also, it's mostly the supposed facial mutilations that convinced me that what you say is too far fetched. You still havne't answered me when I asked about these and also how Levy would have seen these mutilations and even understood them. Even if he did see them and understand they were tailor marks, he would then have to interpret them in the the way you say the Ripper meant them. Way too far fetched.
The only way to prove that anyone had completely solved the case would be to time travel back in time and see the Ripper at work, which is impossible and so you may feel that you have solved the case but you cannot prove that you have.
Jason,
You are completely correct. I also loved what you said about garden tools, this is so true.
You gave good examples, especially the last one, of previous posts of David's, and you are correct, he did suggest he knew the exact person who had committed the crimes.
I know I was thinking what you had the courage to write.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:06 am: | |
‘Let slip the mad dogs of war.’
If I have a single beef with the author of this pretentious piece of flower arranging it is in the title ‘Alternative’.
There is nothing alternative in taking a bunch of dried dead flowers and then rearranging them prettily in the vase. They were dead, they are dead and they will be dead.
The megalomania has now reached the frightening stage where the author is actually copyrighting his posts as he writes them.
Slow down, David, you’ll be invading Poland next.
It’s just your own personal theory. The world will keep spinning round despite your best efforts to make it stand still just for you.
Do you need a hand to carry your throne to the beach?
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 565
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:44 am: | |
Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears,
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.
I've been following this thread the last few days but not joining in. I have criticised David many times in the past, but I would like to think mostly for his arrogance rather than for his knowledge, which I believe is considerable. I understand that it is this very arrogance which leads so many to want to attack his theory and his person now, but I think that many of these attacks are not objective.
First off, David has not solved the case. His solution may well be correct. I don't personally believe so but it has as good a chance of being correct as any other which satisfies the case evidence. However, at least to my mind, solving the case means presenting a solution which demonstrates that "it can be no other way", and this he has not done. He has, however, presented a compelling and praiseworthy solution.
I don't know about "alternative Ripperology". It is my belief that Ripperology is an evolutionary field, that each generation uses and builds on the ideas of their forerunners, whilst adding their own. A successful thesis (theory, solution, call it what you will) is one which adds value to the field, which provides new thoughts and new directions for others to strike out in. In those terms, I believe that David succeeds. (Whether he will thank or damn me for that opinion remains to be seen, I actually suspect the latter).
There were a considerable number of points in Davids summary which have provided me food for thought, some are small points, such as the location of Schwartz's man before Schwartz turned the corner into Berner Street. That one is going to fester. Some are more significant.
The most important point in the summary to my mind, and one which I think most respondents to David have failed to understand, was so simple it was staring me in the face and yet until reading the summary and Davids responses to others it had eluded me. This is the point that it does not matter if we don't understand why the killer should be trying to send messages, and it doesn't matter if we don't think the people the messages were intended for would understand them. The only thing that matters is that the killer himself believed that they would be understood. His thought processes don't mirror ours, of course they don't, he wouldn't be ripping women open in public if they did! His reasons and plans and messages don't have to be logical, they only have to satisfy his own internal logic which, by the very definition of psychopathy, is warped.
I believe that David's summary has:
1. Provided two new names to the list of suspects, and provided compelling reasons for suspecting them
2. Demonstrated that the solution to the case may well, indeed in my opinion probably does, lie not in understanding from our point of view the things that happened, but in understanding them from the point of view of the killer's own internal logic.
If these are the only things it contributes to the case, it is still a significant contribution, and once I congratulate him. But at the same time, tone down the egomania, it ain't pretty! |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:54 am: | |
Alan,
The only thing that matters is that the killer himself believed that they would be understood.
Yes, but where is the proof that these markings were messages anyway? There is none.
This theory is too far fetched for me personally. The only good thing I see is that, David's theory is finally out there and he therefore can't go around writing egocentric and cryptic posts that no-one but him understand.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 559
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:32 am: | |
Alan,
Yes, but see, I am not asking David any questions about the motivations of his killer. I firmly believe that a psychopath could do all sorts of stuff that a sane person would not consider.
I have asked him specifically about Levy and he has refused to answer, dodging away with lame excuses and arrogant attacks on my intelligence.
He told me to read Hare. Hare says that a psychopath never shows his true nature until long after his fly is deeply entangled in his web of manipulations. So it strains credibility to think that Levy, upon witnessing a brutal killing would fall instantly under the spell of the psychopath...BS and balderdash. He has yet to elaborate on any circumstances that would make this remotely credible.
I do admit there are some interesting points in his essay. However, as I have warned him in the past, his total arrogance in believing that he and only he, is capable of thought and his subsequent misdirections are so off-putting, that no one is going to take him seriously.
I, personally, like David. The world would be a lot less interesting without the Davids of the world. But he is his own worst enemy (as we all are, I imagine).
Peace,
Ally
 |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Further information (inconclusive) about a Levy-Kosminski connection will be forthcoming in next month's Rip. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
