|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 747
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 5:40 pm: |       |
True Glenn true.I can see the reason for your reservation of course I can.But for me I have always imagined this character as either a demented Druitt or Kosminski OR the cool devil-may -care machinating risk taker that David describes.
All the Best Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 363
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 5:59 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
I understand what you're concerned with about my posts. I'm finding the "rational vs delusional" stuff a bit hard to describe. I agree, it's not "rational" to decide that one's anger at one's spouse/life/community is best dealt with by going around and murdering random people. One of the most important defining characteristics of "psychopathy" is the lack of empathy for other people, often described as a "lack of a conscience".
What is not part of their problem, however, are delusions. What David's theory includes are lines of reasoning that suggest the killer has a delusional thinking pattern. The idea that the killer, after spotting Levy, figures that it's now very very important to get a message to Levy and then comes upon the idea of "I'll carve some tailor's symbols on her face, obviously Levy will be made aware of these, and he will understand that these cuts in particular are a message, and he will understand what that message is, and he will also know that I intended that message for him, and him only, and finally, he will know not to identify me to the police". Moreover, Levy will hear about the chalk message I will leave. He will also be made aware of the exact spelling I used, so although to everyone else my message will look antisemetic, Levy will understand that Juwes means something in German. And, Levy has to get this information, and understand it, before he goes to the police and describes the person he saw with Eddowes otherwise the message gets to Levy too late. Psychopaths may sometimes want to send messages, but when they do they make those messages absolutely clear. And usually, it boils down to some variation on "F*** you" (excuse me for that).
Finally, we have the killer deciding that his best chances of not being caught are to make sure that he's actually spotted, not once, but twice. Somehow, ensuring that he is seen at the scene of the crime becomes, in the killers mind, the best way to prevent his identification because the witnesses will be Jewish and they won't identify a Jew for fear of the anarchy that will erupt. And this same fear that prevents his identification is going to be what convinces these same witnesses to implicate Aaron, who just happens to be a fellow Jew as well.
That whole line of arguement is suggestive of a delusional thinker as our killer. Pscyhopaths don't reason like that. They would tend to work more along "I'm angry, so I'll take it out on the world for treating me so bad. I find it fun, maybe even sexually arousing, to murder these women. It provides me with enjoyment to put one over on the police and it proves to me how smart I am. I don't want to get caught, so I won't get spotted and I'll take precautions to minimise my chances of being spotted. etc"
Yes, they can be very spontaneous in their outbursts, and they are often risk takers (the very act of committing a series of murders is a high risk activity), but paradoxically, they have the ability to minimise the risks.
They are often filled with self contradictions. The may show highly sophisticated and well developed social skills (ie. charm), but what motivates them is very self-centred, immideate self gratification, etc: in other words what is often considered signs of lack of maturity, or lack of social understandings. They take risks, but they also try and minimise that risk.
The psychopaths who end up being serial killers (and not all psychopaths are even criminals), I suppose could be considered "delusional" in the sense that they see this choice of activity as being "reasonable", which clearly it is not.
Anyway, David's motives (for the actions above) do not seem, to me at least, to suggest psychopothy but more a delusional type disturbance. That's why I don't think his theory is internally consistent. Also, it's only when he changes the motive for the series that things seem to break down to me.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 365
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 6:24 pm: | |
Hi,
I thought I should clarify something, which I have not been clear on. I do not mean that JtR had to be schizophrenic and that he could not be a psychopath, only that it seems to be me that David's theory involves more "schizophrenic type thinking and behaviours" than it does "pscyhopathic type" behaviours. And because David's central premise upon which he builds his entire theory is psycopothy, his theory does not appear to be internally consistent.
The killer's motives and lines of reasoning he presents seem far more indicative of someone with disturbed delusional type thinking than it does of someone who is psychopathic.
A psychopath, who has violent sexual fantacies, perhaps including necrophilia, could also have committed these murders. But then, that in and of itself becomes the motive (which I think is what Glenn is getting at), not the elaborate and convoluted reward gathering that David presents.
Similarily, someone with delusional disorder, like schizophrenia, could also have committed these crimes.
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on April 29, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1683
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 7:31 pm: | |
Good points, Jeff.
As I see it, the confusing thing about Radka's suspect, is his contradictory traits. As you say, some elements seem to suggest a person with rather delusional thinking (such as the symbolic "tailor" marks on Eddowes' face), while at the same time, he displays a rational conduct, with highly extensive planning, taken to great lengths. Of course, I do believe even psychopathic killers can possess both these traits, within reasonable possibilities. But here it is taken to the extreme.
As I've stated earlier, with the risk of sounding gravely repetitious, my main concern is that far-fetched and very calculating motive doesen't fit a compulsory lust killer of Jack the Ripper's type.
Radka suggests that the Ripper murdered and mutilated for a number of combined, very rational reasons, like getting rid of a domestic problem, blaming the murders on someone else in his closest circuit, to provoke the authorities to put up a large reward he'd soon collect himself etc etc., while it to me is obvious that the crime scenes suggests a killer who finds the actions of mutilation and murder to be his main interest and concern.
Besides to act out their fantasies or devils - for these types of serial killers, there are no motive.
Psychopath or not, Radka's character seem to me like a fiction of the author's imagination and feels very constructed - and the motive very theoretical.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 366
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 8:35 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yes, that's how I see it too. The primary "motive" seems to be the mutilations themselves. And this has been proposed so many times that it's hardly "novel" or "new", and it's also a prime example of what David claims is not done in "Classical Ripperology"; try to understand the killer's perspective. I don't understand why anyone would enjoy, or find sexually exciting, etc, the act of killing and disembowling another person. I can't relate to these acts as being in any way being a desirable thing to do. What I do know, however, is that despite my inability to find such things "satisfying", there are people who do think this very way. It's like, I may not understand why someone likes liver and onions (one of the few foods I dislike), but I do understand that some people find this very tasty.
Anyway, what I see is that David starts off with this motive, sparked by a domestic power struggle (but he also suggests that his "psychopath" may have violent sexual fantasies as well, I would suggest that these thoughts are a pre-requesite that his psychopath would have to have). The domestic power struggle then triggers the first murder (Tabram according to David, or Nichols if one sticks with the canonical 5). The killer finds he gets away with it (the first time) and that now that he has crossed the line from his fantasies to reality, finds that the fantasies are no longer enough. So, he continues. End of story. No need for the complications that he introduces.
The problem is, without those complications, there's no reason why this domestic power struggle had to be the one he assumes happened with respect to Aaron Kosminski. It could have occurred in any household, over any issue, provided that one of the people involved was a psychopath with violent sexual fantacies. Moreover, the "power struggle" need not have been domestic, etc. In other words, David's "solution" falls down to simply suggesting that
1) Jack the Ripper was a psychopath, with possible violent sexual fantacies
2) Something in his life triggered the series of murders.
Hardly an alternative view, and not even a "solution" because it doesn't narrow things down to a small set of suspects, nor is it entirely certain that the first point must even be true. Jack the Ripper could have been suffering from a totally different mental disorder that included some delusion that motivated the murders (see below).
I tend to agree with you on the idea that the mutilations were the motive. Whether they were the motive due to sexual fantancies, or some underlying delusion (for example, he thinks he can see daemons living inside these women and he's killing the daemons - just made that up as an example of a delusional motive), is open to debate.
- Jeff
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:13 pm: | |
Whats up Everyone?
Glenn, Jeff, I hope you guys dont mind if I jump in. I just want to start with saying that I agree 100% with Jeffs opinion on the Eddowes facial. If you scroll up and look at my post a few days ago, Jeff, you'll notice that I said basically the same thing. There is no way in a million years that Jack decided to make the "messages" in Eddowes face with Levy in mind. "Oh let me carve these marks here, so when Levy sees them he will know that I know that he knows....blah,blah,blah." Its a very creative idea on Davids part, but, its way too far fetched. How was Jack supposed to know that Levy would even see the body anyway. The markings on her face would be something that normally police wouldnt release to the public.
I'm not saying the markings didnt mean anything, they probably did. But the Tailor theory dont get it for me. All of David's theories regarding Eddowes suggests a VERY ORGANIZED killer, one who probably wouldn't kill
women and just leave them lying in the street or taking the HUGE RISKS that the Ripper did.
Another point is that the theory claims that the Ripper took the 40 minutes between the killing and the writing of the message, to go and look for chalk. If he was That organized, wouldnt he have brought it with him? Especially if he was gonna write a message near the half apron, which he cut in half to tell the cops to look elsewhere for the other half. Did that make sense? Regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1687
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:15 pm: | |
Yep. I totally agree, Jeff.
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: 1688
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:21 pm: | |
Paulie, my man!
I agree with your view on the facial mutilations.
That suggestion presented by Radka is... well, let me be nice... yes, creative, but that's all.
I, for my part, don't believe they mean anything whatsoever, but that is my personal opinion.
"Another point is that the theory claims that the Ripper took the 40 minutes between the killing and the writing of the message, to go and look for chalk. If he was That organized, wouldnt he have brought it with him?"
Ha! Quite a good point, Paul. I liked that. 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 368
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 11:13 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
Sorry for not mentioning your post. I had read it and agreed with your ideas, just forgot to mention that.
I suppose in David's defense concerning the 40 min. for getting the chalk, David could argue that the idea of leaving the chalk message for Levy only occurred to him because he saw Levy in particular. Therefore, the chalk message was something he wasn't originally prepared to do.
Still, I don't buy the whole message thing anyway. And, if the facial cuts on Eddowes are a message, what's Kelly's facial mutilations? Scribbling?
- Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 749
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Jeff/Glenn/Paul,
Think :
-trail of chaos
-plausible rogue
This is your psychopath.
S/he does not think or appear to understand rational behaviour as most people understand rational behavior.
S/he will rationalise for their own purposes anything and anything that gets them what they want and leave in their wake such mayhem and confusion as to confound everyone.
This is why historically they have been such a problem for society and within society the police.
This is no Jekyl and Hyde[cant remember how to spell that sorry]
They are often clever as has been stated but not really again in the sense we know it worried about being caught.They dont especially care about their own well being just the moments fun
mostly.And if someone gets in their way they"ll set fire to their house ---that"ll teach them.
To meet them you would not know it,{and I have]
as they dress well usually and look quite smart.If you know already that they have been diagnosed as such you may pick up on a certain "coldness"[And even this may be because you are looking for it].
I think you have to completely suspend all ideas of conventional mental health/ill health to fully understand this mentality who still regularly outwit outsmart outdo everyone they come in contact with---and especially the law.
That"s why I think the ripper was very probably a psychopath.He pulled it off,didnt get caught etc etc. i can hear Glenn saying "yes, yes I know he could have been a psychopath and so on" the point is Glenn if you don"t mind me saying so you don"t show the full range of chaotic behaviour,the cover ups/slip ups/outright dare devilishness of the psychopath in your posts.I agree though that the ripper went for the womens sexual organs mostly and that this has to be properly explained in the context of psychopathic behaviour.I am honestly inclined to think that maybe ,starting with Martha Tabram"s murder which might have been by one of the Cutbush family the ripper got the idea of it all and decided to let rip for all the sorts of reasons David gives[maybe not those exact reasons but similar highly difficult to follow reasons[difficult for us to understand not the ripper] sorry to have this be in my bonnet the last few days.I do appreciate all that has been said but happen to see things differently.
Take Care Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1692
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
I really think this argument that the psychopath's "notion of rational behaviour is different from ours" is getting tedious, to say the least. I do think this is implied and rather self-written in this context so continue to bring that up time and time again is pointless.
This is getting to the point of getting so repetitious that I almost want to slit my own throat this very minute. Natalie, I have no idea what you mean when you refer to "chaotic behaviour" in this context, but I do know the general traits of a psychopath. I just don't see any reason to dive myself into such details, since I think that is off the point.
For the millionth time, Radka is arguing from the point of view that his suspect is a psychopath. I couldn't care less; I don't dispute the descriptions of a psychopath's behaviour that's been presented here. But what I do question is Radka's description of the behaviour of a lust murderer of Jack the Ripper's kind. Psychopathic behaviour is not my issue here at all; to diagnose a killer that roamed the streets for over hundred years ago is nothing but a technical and theoretical playground.
What we can deduct, to some extent, is how other mutilating serial killers of Jack the Ripper's type act and what "motives" their conduct is based on. It is not necessarily Radka's description of a psychopath that is contradictory, but his description of a lust killer. That is something completely different. A lust killer, performing mutilations, have no real motive besides the crime in itself and their fantasies. And that's why Radka's theory doesen't work. I couldn't care less if Radka's description of a psychopath is correct or valid, because I don't think we are able to diagnose him in either direction anyway.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Personally I think a psychopath's ability to hide his personality traits are a bit over-rated. I have come across several psychopaths during my university years and in my contacts with local politicians, and although I have been fooled in the beginning a couple of times, I can usually spot a psychopath miles away. I sure don't have any special powers, but I am quite aware which signs to look for. Most people with psychopathic mental character features are not violent or murderous (a majority uses their "abilities" in other directions).
These are some of the main character signs that in general reaches my attention:
-- emotional numbness; the mouth may smile or show anger, while the eyes don't reveal any emotions whatsoever. If a psychopath laughs, the eyes in many cases remain without expression, something that can result in a quite chilling and uncomfortable effect
-- ingratiating behaviour; when a person gets too extremely nice and charming I always get suspicious
-- sudden mood and temper swings and sudden irrationality, combined with paranoia; one minute they can be the most pleasant person on earth, and then if you happen to say something of very minor importance that somehow strikes them (in their own minds) as a threat against them, they completely shifts in tone and suddenly their menacing behaviour may be revealed, to be changed again in the next minute
-- a desire to control people and situations in their environment
-- pathological lying.
The above traits may not be developed or visible on all psychopaths, but those are the ones I mainly recognize.
I know a number of people with mental disorders, mostly schizofrenics and especially those who suffer from manic depressions (the latter group is almost always totally harmless to others). But I do NOT indulge in any close socializing with psychopaths or sociopaths, however. The reason is simple: they are way too unpredictable and impulsive. Their whole personality they reveal in public is in general a fake and a total act. So I just simply avoid them and keeps them as far away from me as possible. They are not interested in knowing you anyway unless they can get some personal gain out of it.
And since I on most occasions manages to see through them, they are seldom interested in knowing me either -thank God.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Dear Natalie,
Funnily enough, I knew Ronnie Laing and David Cooper, when they were putting their Critique together. Odd, the people I knew. I was working on a magnus opus, "The Critique of Theft" in solitary confinement at the time. Wonderful memories of pure unadulterated solitude! Then the Home Office decided to confiscate it under the Official Secrets Act because they said I had obtained information from spies and diplomats while I was in prison relating to covert methods of burglary and theft...and of course, murder.
Nowadays, they leave me alone.
Rosey:-)
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Hi Folks,
I've got my tax deadlines met, so this is the day I will begin responding to all your as-yet unanswered questions. Look for my responses today and tomorrow. Thanks to all for your patience.
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
"How do you reconcile the degree of planning that your psycopath apparently experiences when there is no other killer ever known who has defined their killing as anything more than impulse they are unable to control?"
>>Probably my best work in the Summary is question #40--"Was the Whitechapel murderer a lust murderer?" I think he was, but only in a difficult to imagine, nonexclusive use of the term "lust murderer." It is in the nature of philosophy to push language to its dynamical limits in order to apprehend the truth, not to merely find truth in language as the sophist does, and here is where it is pushing its subtlest. You've got to get used to a kind of distortion of language in order that the truth be manifested. You need to look hard, not blink, and stomach a bit of nausea.
Without a doubt he must be considered a lust murderer simply because he mutilated the genitals. Additionally, the evidence indicates he had a fetish for the female body--look at what he did in Miller's Court. Look at the focus on the abdomen, the phallic devastation arising from his fantasy intercourse, the scraping off of the flesh from the inner thighs, etc. This and other evidence give indication that fetishistic, lustful thoughts are underway in his mind, and the fact that these behaviors are repeated indicates they must have some obsessive component for him.
On the other hand, what are we supposed to do with all the other evidence that simultaneously indicates some rational purposes to what he does? Maybe he's feeling lustful and obsessive whilst mutilating, but could we consider the same to be motivating him when composing the cryptic graffitus? The Lusk letter? These actions must have had purposes beyond lust, what were they? They are certainly intellectually-oriented actions on his part, albeit they may be irrational. What about the fact that he chooses to slay openly right in the heart of the most populated city of the world, yet he never gets caught? If he were merely hounded by lustful compulsion to do this, wouldn't he be SO hounded that he'd be making sufficient mistakes to get himself caught right there and then? Therefore, I think, he NEED NOT necessarily be so hounded, or at least always or exclusively hounded, despite the presence of lustful motivations. Let me ask directly, what are we supposed to do with the many contrary indications to lustfulness? Eat them? But if we accept a lust-basis explanation for the evidence, then we are accepting an unsatisfactory solution, and we'll not be satisfied with it. Neither lust nor rationality can be accepted as an adequate motivation for doing ALL the things the evidence says he did.
The way the lust-oriented Ripperologists have traditionally handled this quesy feeling of nausea when it begins creeping around in their bellies is to simply deny agnostically any evidence indicating rationality or intellect. It's all so convenient. The murderer didn't write the graffitus or the Lusk letter, he didn't kill Stride, the facial mutilations on Eddowes are nothing more than the delusions of a madman inaccesible to the rational mind of the Ripperologist, the apron piece found in Goulston Street was a "fragment" not a half, etc. More and more, now too much denial is necessary to stave off the nausea. But too much evidence remains undeniable for satisfaction.
The original solution to these quandries I developed lets him be both a lust and a rational murderer inside the notion of him being psychopathically erratic. As a psychopath, his very name is inconsistency, and, as Cleckley says, when apparent consistency (in this case lustful fetishism) appears it is really an inconsistency in inconsistency. The psychopath is primarily motivated by external or arbitrarily externalized forces. Whatever internal "distress" he may transiently feel is soon foolishly projected into what killing that woman standing on that corner over there will do for him, for example. Inner phenomena are rapidly translated into disjointed self-ruinous external whims, capricies, or impulses. So here we discover both a rational thinker and an impulse-driven lustful murderer, both at the same time, as, as it were, opposite poles of the erratical vibration.
Assume we caught Jack the Ripper, sat him down, and asked him to explain why he killed the prostitutes. How do you think he'd answer? He'd say he'd be sitting in his apartment or walking down the street and when he'd think of a woman, he'd get a caprice to do something to her, to kill her, and if you asked him why, he'd simply answer "because, that's why." The spontaniety of the killing is important to him, it's in the nature of the psychopathic projections he is, so he talks of that. But that doesn't exclude him from cooking other things in his pot at the same time.
copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 752
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Glenn,What makes you say you want to slit your throat? We are only having a discussion after all!
Anyway its frustrating for me a bit too for the opposite reason.For example I dont know how many times Mary has been dressed and undressed,her injuries put under the microscope and so on.Also there have been tons of posts given over to whether Joe Barnett spat on Mary Kelly"s grave
[by the way I am not having a go at Richard just pointing out that you are a bit unfair when you say I am being repetative when many others are sometimes repetative too yet I don"t see you being particularly critical there.
Anyway back to the psychopath!
Now.........
Take care Glenn
natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
If you sat Jack down and asked him why he killed prostitutes he would probably say:
'Because they were bad rabbits.'
copyright AP Wolf, 1888 |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 753
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | |
Hi Rosey,You seem to have had quite an exciting time one way or another!
Ronnie was quite a lad in his time too---that"s just the sort of study he would have thrown himself into!Anyway Good on ya Rosey! Tell us some more!
I have a great regard for him and his work actually even if he did advocate tripping on LSD
to get an inside understanding of schizophrenia!
Take Care
Nats |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 754
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
I think he would have been more likely to say F**K off and dont come p*ss*ng on my patch!
Nats |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 755
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Sorry the above post was addressed to my friend AP
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Radka wrote: On the other hand, what are we supposed to do with all the other evidence that simultaneously indicates some rational purposes to what he does? [...] Let me ask directly, what are we supposed to do with the many contrary indications to lustfulness? Eat them? Sounds to me like you need to read up a bit on lust murderers, David. There are no contrary indications here that breaks the pattern for a lust murderer, neither are the rational elements especially extraordinary for these types of motiveless killers.
I don't know where you've read that lust murderers can't be rational. You, my friend, are confusing them with paranoid schizofrenics. But a psychopathic lust murderer are usually rational and clever, apart from the actual moment of killing.
Ted Bundy was a psychopath, and he was highly intelligent and cunning - and an obsessive lust murderer with no other motive than his personal needs. I can name at least twenty others. A psychopathic (if we are talking psychopaths here) lust murderer indulges in planning, luring his victims in false security, impersonating police officers or other authority types - as far as the actual circumstances around the murders are concerned.
But the thing here is the motive! It is not strange for a lust murderer to be rational when he's preparing for or is committing the crimes - what is strange is for him to have sophisticated motives. Don't confuse the murderer's methods with his reasons.
Once again, the issue here is, that a lust murderer seldom do these crimes for other reasons than to act out their sexual fantasies and urges. It is your motive that doesen't work, Radka, not necessarily the description of his methods.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 561
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Glenn,
Ted Bundy is an excellent example of a very intelligent, reasoning killer whose only motivations were his "impulses" (for lack of a better word). The example that got me was when after killing one girl, he went back the next day to the area where he had kidnapped her from and seeing the police swarming close to where he had taken her, he went over and collected the girls shoe and earring (I believe those were the items, I could be wrong) that had been left behind and went off with them as the police were searching a block over.
Rational ability to cover up and deflect suspicion from what had occured but motivated only by his own desires--to kill and not get caught.
 |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 758
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
Glenn and Ally,
I agree with both of you here about Bundy.I had never heard of Bundy until I came on this site but
have already seen parallels with the ripper as far as nerveless cheek goes anyway.But surely Bundy was much more clearly into sex with his victims than ever the ripper was?
Natalie |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
"...no, I did not read it word-for-word but I looked at each of the 44 points well enough to get the gist and was disappointed. And part-way through I thought of the quotation, so when I was done reading I reached into the desk drawer for my Penguin Dictionary of Quotations and got the wording right."
>>It is hard for someone like me to imagine that there are people like the above, who have so little intellectual integrity that they will make decisions on a work after making only a negligible amount of effort to understand it. I wrote to change the Ripperlogical epoch. What I mean is not going to be understood by superficial readings.
Copyright David M. Radka 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
1. (Following the Duke Street sighting): "Levy had no assurances that the killer wouldn't be caught and then Levy would be exposed as having known all along who the killer was and protecting him, thereby arousing even more anti-jewish feeling, i.e. they cover up the vicious slaughter to protect their own. Levy had more to lose by allowing the killer to go on killing than he did by not."
>>Sure he did. But Levy is not a clean logic machine, he's a messy human being with complicated feelings, a conscious and an unconscious, an inside and an outside, neurotic fears, all of him just like you and me. And you saw what happenened because he clammed up, didn't you? Miller's Court, another murder in the series and the most horrible one at that, a near-miss on an horrific reaction against the people by the mounted police, and, overall, far more risk to him, his family and the Jewish community than if he'd contacted the murderer immediately after Duke Street/Mitre Square as the murderer wanted him to do. When Levy wakes up Sunday morning and hears there's been a murder in Mitre Square, he wants among other things to believe that maybe the murderer did see him, and now will stop because Levy can identify him, and therefore Levy doesn't have to stick his nose in and contact him. He doesn't want to feel the tiger he has got by the tail.
2. "And you never did answer whether there is any proof either that Levy was related to Aaron, or that Levy was Anderson's witness. One of these must be proven to proceed."
>>In two simple words: Proof, schmoof. If you go about trying to solve the Whitechapel murders by looking for empirical data to back up every single point you make, you will wind up in the same place a great many otherwise rational people wound up: Believing your own BS. Since there isn't any empirical data to do it, you'll convice yourself that when so-and-so told you-know-who about such-and-such they were right, and therefore your case solution is proven! Why not a healthy, robust Ripperology, to shine its light down on all the sickly ones? Why not start out trying to get one's predications right?
N.B. Scott Nelson is pending publication on a Levy-Kosminski connection at this time, as a matter of fact, and if it is compelling so much the better. Sauce for the goose.
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.
|
|
|
|
