|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 288
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 12:48 pm: |       |
David,
As I stated earlier I respect you putting forth your opinion and putting so much work into it, but you certainly have not even come close to solving the case.
The arrogance raises its ugly head again.
-K |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Radka wrote: 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. Hahaha. Good one.
In all respect, I'll tell you about the mish-mash, David. On one hand your Ripper is a calculating, scheming killer who has sophisticated motives, including money issues (the reward); on the other he is a lust-driven mutilating killing machine. I may point out that there are no clear-cut rules that makes it possible per definition to categorize any killer or criminal personality (yes, we many times a make a mistake when we are trying to define a murderer's personality from our own personal logic and set up clinical boundaries), but that just doesen't work.
You are too much hung up on the psychopathy issue, so much that you are disregarding the crime scene evidence and facts deriving from other similar cases. A psychopath can act in a tremendous amount of different ways - where the general common traits are self-absorbness, lack of empathy, paranoia (in some cases), grandiosity, intelligence above average etc. These traits can lead to quite different types of crimes; extortion, rape, murder etc.
But what is fundamental in a behaviour - without getting too entangled in the slippery web of subjective and theoretical profiling theories - of a murderer like Jack the Ripper, who uses excessive mutilations, is that he is a compulsive lust murderer. These types of murderers, psychopaths or not, seldom have any sophisticated motives behind their crimes besides the sexual fantasies and personal ghosts that control their actions. If we're dealing with a psychopath lust murderer, then we see a number of intelligent approaches in connection with how he encounters the victims and manages to escape and so on.
But the reasons for the murders and the mutilations themselves are hardly as complicated as you wants to make it out to be. If we may subject ourselves to generalisations, based on the majority of other similar cases, a lust murderer doesen't do it for money, nor for constructed motives to show a point. The murders and the mutilation signature are not secondary for a lust murderer, they are the definitive way to act out his fantasies and obsessions.
You are trying to construct a mix of different kinds of psychopaths, without considering the evidence linking the Ripper murders to a pure lust murderer - if he's a psychopath is of secondary importance. The key to Jack the Ripper lies in the mutilations, which are clearly influenced of perverted, sexual obsessions, not by those motives you present.
I congratulate you; Radka, to your PhD in knowledge of psychopathy - as you in your own mind seem to be the only one here who is not "ignorant" about what makes them tick (although you only refer to two important sources) - nevertheless, I must - even though I can acknowledge the innovative essence of your approach - point out to you that parts of your scenario and attempts to personality analyses, are based on purely theoretical, non-empiric constructions in order to make the murderer fit your rather complex motives, not the general understanding of lust murderers.
But it is an impressive academic somersault, displaying a good deal of intelligence on the author's part. But credible? Nah.
All the best from Mr Andersson
(who don't claim copyright on rhetorical contributions posted on public forums)
(Message edited by Glenna on April 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi David,
I have read your work , with intrest, while I agree with the majority of posts , it is extremely hard to grasp, the wording is not what the normal enthusiast could follow, unless alcohol free , and a good fish supper.
However it is a extremely fine piece of work, and I for one congratulate you on your enormous efforts, and dedication, and I admire your beliefs, written with such enthusasim.
The only thing i personally can add , is it seems to be more specualtive , then Grave spitting , thirty nine theory, and Barnett being Jack'
But there again 'What is wrong with that?.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 735
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Hi Jim and thanks.No I don"t know half as much as many on the boards as you will see in due course.It worries me a bit that I am making such a habit of "finding out who the ripper was".oh well never mind!
Yes David"s theory has added a whole new dimension to it since I have"nt really considered a psychopath as the ripper seriously before but I think it makes a lot of sense. Before this I had always thought of the ripper as a paranoid schizophrenic "hearing voices " and the like.
I still do have a few thoughts on this,For example now that David has enlightened me about the "v"s underneath Catherines eyes[inverted]and pointing to a"one eye shut and the other eye open"[as in a wink] type of mutilation as message
Such could also mean "the One Eyed one is watching [all our movements and I am carrying out his commands].This "one eyed one"[a greater power]
is often symbolised thus in such schizophrenia and is one of its manifestations as I understand it[like the hearing of voices is another manifestation]
Any way this thread isnt the place for such a digression but it has been bugging me a bit since I knew nothing of the eyelid cuts until David mentioned them.
Back to psychopathic Jack then.Its Good Isnt It?
Natalie |
James D. Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diomedes
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
Hey Natalie,
Thanks for your kind response, it is certainly feasible that he was sending a message with the mutilations of Catherine Eddowes, but I have always thought that he sent a definite message with Mary Jane Kelly. A message that haunts my mind.
Many Regards
Jim Smith
p.s. I lean heavily toward him having manic deppresant elements to his chemistry. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 355
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:25 pm: | |
Hi,
I think David has some interesting points, and certainly some useful suggestions. The notion that the crimes, or the motives for such crimes, may make sense "to the killer but not to us" is an important, if not new or original, point that does need repeating.
The central piller of David's theory is that the crimes must be viewed from the point of view of a psychopath. Then, once one views things from this point of view, the rest of the "evidence" falls into place. This is a form of "theory confermation" called "bootstrapping", where one underlying assumption can be used to explain a large amount of apparently unconnected "facts". In David's summary, example of the "unconnected facts" are things like Eddowes facial mutilations, the choice of Lusk for the kidney, the offered meaning of the word "Juwes", the murder of Stride, the importance of Jewish witnesses at both Stride and Eddowes murder, etc. The common assumption is "psychopathic killer".
The problem is that many of the "explanations" for these things don't seem to fit with the original assumption of a psychopath. Psychopaths are not delusional in their thinking, meaning they do know very well how to avoid getting caught, and though they can do very nasty things (like mutilation murders) they also go to great lengths to do them in a manner that does not put them at risk of capture. And, if they are going to send messages, they make sure these messages are clear.
The notion that the cuts on Eddowes face are tailor's marks intended to send a message to Levy, however, is not a way a rational thinking person would send Levy a message. Psychopaths are not irrational in their thinking, at least not in this kind of a way. I admit, deciding that killing and mutilating someone is an activity worth doing does not seem a rational choice; but doing so because you are angry is "rational" but doing so because you believe that you need to replace your blood because it's evaporating, is not.
Even if David's interpretation of these facial mutilations as tailor's symbols is correct, and that the motivation behind them really was to send a message to Levey, then this very aspect of his theory does not fit with his central premise that the person doing these things is a rational thinking psychopath. It suggests, rather, a delusional thinking schizophrenic. Why? Because the message as "written" is so cryptic that a rational person would not rely on the outside chance that Levy 1) would ever even be presented with this information 2) know that it was intended as a message or 3) realise the message was intended for him. There was no way the proposed psychopath could ensure that Levy would ever be found as a witness, that he would ever know of the message/facial mutilations, etc.
Similarly, David's suggestion that the line in the Lusk letter about waiting awhile and sending the knife actually means "hey if you don't push for more reward money I might come and kill you" sounds more like schizophrenic reasoning than it does psychopathic.
As does the interpretation of the word "Juwes". A psychopath is just not going to risk his message getting misunderstood by presenting it in a sentence that almost guarentee's it will be interpreted as an antisemetic message. Again, for someone to believe that his "true message" will be obvious to others indicates that the "writer" is delusional about what others will see.
In other words, David's theory does not hold the internal consistency that it needs to. The behaviours and explanations for the most complicated aspects of his theory do not follow from the critical underlying assumption that we're dealing with a rational thinking, but psychopathic, killer. These parts of his theory suggest a killer who is delusional in a manner that suggests schizophrenia, not psychopathic.
However, it is at this point that David suggests a change in motive for the killer. The original motive, which is that a psychopath gets angry at his female spouse and then goes out and kills women in order to express his anger, is the kind of thing that psychopaths have been known to do; coupled with sexual fantasies associated with violence and such as well. I seen no reason why this motive has to change. The entire series could maintain this initial motivation, and as such "work".
The problem, of course, is that all this "solution" boils down to is that "Jack the Ripper" was a psychopath. And, as Glenn has pointed out, there are other psychological disorders which the killer could also suffer from based upon the kinds of crimes committed.
Anyway, that's my view.
- Jeff |
James D. Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diomedes
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:33 pm: | |
Hello All
It's me again, I also wanted to add that a person in a manic phase can go to the extremes and display psychotic behavior. Add psychosis and mania and you have a bad combination. One of the tale-tell signs of mania is an elevated sex drive and the ability to charm the socks off of people. I hope I don't come across as someone who thinks he is an authority on the subject, I am not, but I have taken an interest and dabbled in the realm of psychology a bit.
Most Sincerely,
Jim Smith |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 356
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
Hi,
Ooops! I left out the point that a psychopathic killer would not try and "ensure a witness". The whole notion that the killer is trying to make sure he is spotted at two murders is not something a psychopath would do. A psychopath is a rational thinker along these lines and goes to great lengths to ensure they are not spotted. They sometimes make mistakes, or get careless, but they do not go out of their way to ensure they are seen because this introduces a high risk of getting caught. Only hindsight tells us JtR did not get caught even though he may have been spotted. The idea that "I must be spotted by a Jewish person because that will reduce my chances of being identified" would again suggest a delusional, or schizophrenic-type, thinking disorder. Which again does not fit with the central premise of a psychopath.
I would like to point out, however, that again this concern is a result of David suggesting a change in motive for the crimes. It is at this point that his theory starts to unravel and becomes internally inconsistent. Remove that aspect, maintain the intial motive, and things work much better.
And, in defense of David, he does offer a "solution". Although he doesn't finger one person in particular, he narrows the list down to an adult male who's sense of authority is undermined by the women of the household taking in Aaron Kosminsky. As such, his suspect must be an adult male, living in this household, who might feel his masculinity/authority has been threatened by this action. So, either the husband of this women, or less likely, another male in the same household.
The concern, of course, is that if we take away all the complicated parts, which we would have to in order to make the theory internally consistent, is there's no reason why the specific act of Aaron Kosminsky moving into this household need be the "stressor" that prompted the series of killings. A similar, or even a different, benign type action could easily occur in another household and trigger in a psychopathic resident of that household the whole series.
And finally, if in fact David's complicated stuff is, in fact, true, these explanations are far more consistent with Aaron Kosminsky as the Ripper because he was actually delusional in his thinking, which David's explanations suggest the killer was.
- Jeff |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 8:45 pm: | |
Hang on everyone. I have one more employer to complete by noon Friday, then I can get to answering all the backed-up questions. My apologies for not being with you fully the past two days.
David |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
Hi Dradka.
Sarah wrote “I notice your haven't answered any of my questions.”
Well seeing that yours truly isn’t a member of the “elite contributors” to these messageboards I suspect he won’t answer any of mine either Sarah.
I have waited patiently however, to allow the regular contributors their pennyworth, before I decided to post this message. So here goes all the same.
“Alterative Ripperology”, this would suggest an alternative to what has already been said and written about JTR. Well I read your summary Mr Radka and to be honest I don’t see anything other than yet another conventional, unsuccessful, attempt to name and shame the killer.
Even the idea of seeing the crimes from the killers point of view fails to convince me of "Alternative Ripperology".
Now I’m no Kant, ahem, although there are some on these boards who think otherwise.
But you seem to have an unhealthy dose of egocentricity running through your blood.
You wrote, “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.”
Would I be right in assuming, that you are of the opinion, that anyone not accepting the fact that you have solved the case, is not looking hard enough into your solution?
Do we need to study Psychopathy to understand your theory?
Will the thesis be made into a book? (I ask this because like AP Wolf I see a lot of Copyrights flying about) because if it is, the potential audience is limitless, you must then start to accept the fact that lots of other people will disagree with your theory. I hope you have a thick skin.
I agree with Mr Souden about the use of unnecessary English words in the summary, but in fairness you did state that the Thesis provides a common language for the argument. And to be honest I did actually get the jist of what the summary was saying.
Now regarding the content of your revelations. It is indeed a most complex story you present, and so you must realise that the facts must bear up to the closest scrutiny. I will give you an example, you said that,
“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.”
So where was Aaron living at the time of the murders? If this can be established, then according to your theory, the home of the killer is found. Now we have a definite direction in which the killer was heading after Eddowes Murder, as he dropped a piece of Eddowes apron in Goulston street. I only hope for your sake that he was heading in the direction of Aaron’s home.
Do you see what I mean about close scrutiny?
When Stephen Knights book arrived in the 1970’s, he also thought he had found the final solution, within a year you could drive a bus through the holes in it. I suspect the same thing will happen to your theory.
One thing though that had me thinking. Regarding the markings on Eddowes eyes being the marks used by tailors. They could be, and I’m surprised that you missed the point that a thimble was also found just by one of her fingers. It’s always been my opinion that the killer placed this thimble on Eddowes finger, it being knocked off by the departing killer or one of the discoverers of the body. Couldn’t think of why he had placed a thimble on her finger, in the end I put it down to juvenile devilment. Combining it with your tailors marks under the eyes gave it new meaning however.
One further thing about Eddowes, she did apparently confide to someone that she knew the identity of JTR, had your Psychopath met Eddowes on a previous occasion and spun her a yarn about the identity of JTR ,could your Psychopath have arranged to meet her in Aldgate High Street on the night of her murder?
It would explain (if Stride was a Ripper victim) the remarkably short time in which the killer seemed to pick up another victim, after the Stride murder.
Come to think of it did he also arrange to meet Stride in Berner Street? He might just of arranged to meet these two, in order to murder them near to the two Jewish Clubs.
Did he carefully arrange a timeset, whereby he arranged to meet Eddowes shortly after murdering Stride?
But that would mean that you could be right Mr Radka.
I’m going before I can see more truths in Mr Radkas theory.
Take Care Now.
Cludgy.
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 737
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Psychopathic behaviour doesn"t usually conform to what is considered "rational" or "reasonable behaviour by most law abiding citizens----far from it.In fact you can almost define it by what is irrational unreasonable and lawless.Such individuals may pay lip service to the law and rational behaviour but their own laws prevail which are not those of your average law abiding citizen.
Also the psychopath is both reckless and impulsive
most often, risks and risk taking is what seems to motivate---taking four wives/husbands at once and having one hell of a time[while gambling away any fortune that may be around at one and the same time as masquerading as a bank manager, a stock broker,a senior military man or airplane pilot or all three to all three wives one of whom he may decide to bump off because he needs all her money there ansd then.
What we may see as rational s/he usually does not although usually being bright enough to fully understand what it means viz a court of law ---and often not giving two hoots!
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1677
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Yes, Natalie. I know that. That is not the point, I made that rather clear in my last post; I have no objections to the description of a psychopath. We can't know exactly what sort of logic applies to a killer (there is no need to repeat a point I have already addressed or acknowledged - se above), but we can apply our knowledge from other serial killers performing similar crimes. Seen in that light the old argument that "a killer's motives may seem irrational to us" is rather tedious.
We are dealing here with a serial killer that rips up women and is doing mutilations , concentrated on the sexually charged areas on the female body. I don't care how a psychopath works, that is not the issue. What matters is, that mutilating killers of Jack's kind generally don't have those kind of motives for their crimes, they do it because they have to, and what differs a psycopath killer in this category from a paranoid schizofrenic, for example, is the more deliberate planning and controlled manner. But the crimes perpetrated by a mutilating killer of this kind are still deriving from degenerate sexual fantasies, maybe connected with rage. Not the kind of complex motive patterns Mr Radka is presenting.
Jack the Ripper was a lust murderer, and most known lust murderers generally don't work in this manner - psychopaths or not. What is the key to his personality - if that ever can be established in the first place - are the mutilations, not general descriptions of psychopaths in a psychology book. He may - for all we know - not be a psychopath at all, so such speculations are meaningsless efforts. All we have is what the crime scenes tells us about him, and that leaves Radka's motive suggestions rather unthinkable in my view.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1678
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Correction of the first line in the last passage (because of the incredibly stupid editing time limit):
"Jack the Ripper was a lust murderer, and most known lust murderers generally don't perform their crimes on basis of such elaborate scheming - psychopaths or not. What is important to them is the crime itself, not to use the mutilation in order to solve other issues of more complex nature."
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Hi Cludgy,
I think it's entirely possible that the ripper indeed 'booked' his women a few hours before their appointments with their maker, gave 'em a little drink and a 'deposit' in the form of a gift maybe, to show good faith, promised them a more than fair final payment for their 'services', even joking with them about being careful not to bump into old Leather Apron in the meantime, making them laugh and feel safe in his company.
Unfortunately, I can't agree with David about the killer himself being Jewish, so I obviously don't think he has solved the case.
Hi David,
Many thanks for sharing your hard work with the readers. I am fairly sure you automatically own the copyright of all original material posted here under your real name, timed and dated.
I thought that was the beauty of getting a new theory, or new evidence, up here ASAP.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I always try to read through my messages one more time as soon as I post them. Therefore I feel compelled to say that I find the time allowed for late proof reading and final editing of even my longest offerings more than reasonable.
I don't remember even having the opportunity to edit my own messages when I first posted to the Casebook, although that may be down to my almost total computer illiteracy at the time, and perhaps not realising I could edit my drivel!
In those days one had to smile like this too - :-) - and I got a lot of stick for adding too many smileys and winks - ;-) - to my messages. 
Love,
Caz
X |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
"...not general descriptions of psychopaths in a psychology book."
>>Glen needs to get ahold of Cleckley. Read his SPECIFIC descriptions in his voluminous case histories of real psychopaths he personally knew and observed. Nothing general about them. Nothing I show the Whitechapel murderer as doing in A?R is any different from what Cleckley's real psychopaths do--over and over again.
PS I'm still swamped with work and deadlines. I will be answering all back posts in full tomorrow or Saturday. Best wishes to all.
copyright David M. Radka 2004
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
If that Is Psychopathic behavior Natalie, then there are two living in our Street. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
Hi All,
Having been diagnosed in my youth as a "sociopath" by prison psychiatrists...phew! just one lil'ol step from full-blown "psychopath", I have spent many years, asking myself what a "sociopath" is, and what a "psychopath" is, and whats the difference (three degrees of seperation:-)).
Some of my best friends are "psychopaths"-there,I have said it! Will I now be persona non gratis on this site?
Anyway, from my many convoluted and often amusing conversations with these prison psychiatrists -highly paid consultants - I never got a rational definition of 'sociopath' and 'psychopath'. I once got a psychitrist to admit that his prison visits was the more interesting part of his existence. So, being of such a devious character, we "sociopaths" and "psychopaths" are also entertained for maybe a half hour and, if we are cunning enough, a full hour out of our cellular confinement, cigarettes, candy, coffe, if you are lucky, a coke!
God, I miss those crazy encounters. And yes Natalie, there are more "psychopaths" out there than in all the world's prisons and insane asylums, but we don't mention this in our clinical dissertations :-)
(But I'm on the mend, now. Still, on the odd occassion I have these dark thoughts, see.)
Anyway, thats my excuse for not bothering to train my heavy guns on the often abtuse superstructure of modern forensic-psychiatry.
Sleep tight!
Rosey:-) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1679
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I do try to proof-read my messages as well - several times as a matter of fact. But somehow that doesen't always seem to help; sometimes I'm wondering if I am beginning to show signs of early dyslexia. Then, of course, there may be things one might find necessary to add some minutes later, because you didn't think of it at the time.
I think it's reasonable with a time limit for, let's say, an hour or so. But fifteen minutes is just ridiculous.
I'm very greatful for the editing possibilities and smiley icons, ofc ourse, but then, on the other hand, today every board with some self-respect should contain these elements.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1680
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Radka,
No thank. you. I think I'll pass. I have poisoned my mind with enough profiling nonsense to last a life-time. I think some of this very subjective, psychological stuff has its value, but I prefer not to draw any wider conclusions from it.
Please, Radka. I haven't seen any cases where mutilating lust killers have complex rational motives as a base for their crimes. These types of murders are usually referred to in all literature and in the reality of police work as "motiveless" (meaning they are based on an urge to kill, mutilate and to act out the murderer's personal fantasies) and there's a reason for it.
The murders themselves and the fantasies that lies behind them are the background for these crimes, not far-fetched and complex situations. If Cleckley believes and states the opposite, it just confirms my recently founded aversion against these theoretical constructions.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 741
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Hi Rosie,well you certainly wont be "persona non gratis" with me ,mate and congrats for "coming out" so to speak.
To be quite honest my mother who worked as an art therapist in a place that housed people with various mental health problems[it was she got me a temporary teaching job in the same hospital]she always used to say "read R.D.Laing"s "The Divided Self"---he considers there is only one category of mental illness and that is mental illness-----you can forget all the rest.And his views were popular for a long time
though now I understand that the medical profession thinks some of his theories are relevant but also that there are neurological conditions that predispose people to become seriously mentally ill which when combined with trauma or deprivation of certain kinds in childhood will produce ill health that is a problem for the individuals themselves and others too.
Rosie I am sure we all have the proverbial skeletons in the cupboard.Sometimes I have thought my entire family was a bit psychopathic to be honest---but then I put it in some kind of perspective and realise they were not.Just a bit bonkers I think!
Anyway its difficult to know how much modern day psychiatry can help solve this case.And I get your point who really knows definitively what constitutes a "psychopath"----which is after all what David is emphasising----the behaviour can be so varied and take in such a range of anti-social behaviour!
Best Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 742
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
hi Glenn,well actually I was mostly thinking of the last two posts on here of Jeff"s[concerning the rational/irrational stuff].Anyway always an honour to be addressed by you so I"ll continue.
Well yes I can see you point and I have a lot of respect for what you are saying.And its perfectly true that the ripper seemed to be hideously interested in that part of a woman"s anatomy that houses our reproductive organs--this appears to be what he targeted most.Also the poses were suggestive of some kind of obssesive stuff about the vagina as well---even though he doesn"t appear to have engaged in what is usually thought to be normal sexual behaviour.
So for me too there is a caution in accepting him as your typical psychopath.However David does talk about his formidable anger with womankind
[therefore these organs are the ones he would target in such a rage as they represent what distinguishes us most from men after all.]It is in this context that his behaviour becomes credible.
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Hi Natalie.
What's with the afro dude on the bottom? 
Funny clip-art.
I think David has got stuck in the hands of his psychopath - like I was some time ago with the paranoid schizofrenic; I believe such fixations can blur and distort our judgments or analysing skills. I look at two things: a) the crime scene evidence and b) what we can learn from other cases of similar character (and here I am not referring to psychiatrists' personal and subjective conclusions regarding those).
There is no reason to believe in a complex motive like the one David offers in this case. If it was another psychopathic killer, like George Chapman etc. -- yes. But not someone who, in my view, mutilates to act out personal fantasies. It doesen't add up.
I absolutely agree about the poses being an important point as well, by the way. Considering other killers of similar kind, I would suggest that these derives from a final touch to further degrade and humiliate the victim. It is a very common feature in sex-related murders, and not only in connection with those that involves mutilation. But in my mind they confirm that these murders are sexually related - unless they're "staged" to look like lust murders, but that I feel is to take the speculations too far just to fit a theory.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 744
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
I had to have a laugh about the last point Glenn i think the psychopath would have been capable of "staging" something a bit obscene just to get up everyone"s nose.This was Victorian England when even the legs of the table were "under wraps".Nothing would surprise me about the ripper.
However I do think you make a very valid point about the site of these mutilations.
I like the afro one.It rocks,it has fire -to quote AP. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Hi Natalie, I had to have a laugh about the last point Glenn i think the psychopath would have been capable of "staging" something a bit obscene just to get up everyone"s nose.This was Victorian England when even the legs of the table were "under wraps". Nothing would surprise me about the ripper. Well, yeah... anything's possible, but I wouldn't consider that a serious possibility. Although I wrote it, I don't believe in it myself. Seems more like taken from a bad movie script, as far as I am concerned. Reality is often less complex and sophisticated.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
