|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1699
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 5:04 pm: |       |
Ally,
Indeed, indeed.
Hi Natalie,
If you refer to whether or not Bundy engaged in real sexual activities with his victims (in contrast to the Ripper), well; some lust murderers do and some don't. But the important thing for Bundy, from a sexual point of view, was not the sex act itself - but the violent stuff and the killing. So regarding the sexual fixation that made them kill, he and the Ripper don't differ that much; they just had different approaches. They were probably equally much into sex, it's just that it expressed itself differently. Not all killers work alike.
What they did share, was the same urge to act out their perverted needs through murder and for no other motive than the actual deed.
What differs them from one another is that Bundy was raping, torturing and sodomizing his victims (and mutilating in some cases) - turning him into what the profilers call a "sadosexual killer". This the ripper didn't do, the crime scene evidence and the wounds on the victims tells us that. The Ripper only indulged in postmortem activities. So that is correct.
But I would suggest that they had the same driving forces.
Apart from their need to act out their sexual-violent fantasies, it is not all that certain that Bundy and the Ripper has that much in common; I am not even sure of that the Ripper was a psychopath, but he may have been. But here we are plunging into the realms of speculation. Other interesting examples are John Reginald Christie and Jeffrey Dahmer, who made postmortem mutilations and also parted the bodies. Neither they had any rational motives.
Well, there are numerous of other examples, and probably better ones.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 761
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
I do see about the sexual intent in the mutilations.The above post details the differences as well between the Bundy killings and the rippers and is helpful in terms of degrees of similarity,Glenn.
Where I have trouble here is in categorising Christie for example as a "psychopathic lust killer". I would like it if you could quote the medical reference that supports your definition.Similarly with Bundy.Where exactly in the medical books does it say that Bundy and Christie were Psychopaths?If you can tell me the name of the books and references I would appreciate it very much and will get the book myself.
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1700
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 6:43 pm: | |
Well, Natalie.
With Christie it's a bit tricky because I really don't know enough about him in order to diagnose him, and I think that is probably a risky thing to do anyway. It is far too easy to get entangled in psychological definitions; most killers are a complex mix of different character types. We are all different individuals and I would rather avoid generalisations if I can. Since Christie didn't show no real signs of being a delusional character, I would say he probably would come closer to a psychopath because of his lack of empathy, but it's hard to tell.
Regarding Bundy, it's another matter. He is the ultimate psychopath: charming, enchanting, used casting on his arm to lure the victims to help him, was very intelligent, articulate and manipulating, did his own defense, showed no remorse or empathy etc. etc. Bundy is probably the best and clearest example we have of a psychopathic sexual serial killer - showing all possible traits there is of a psychopath.
Like the Ripper, both Christie's and Bundy's crimes were based on perverted sexual needs, though. According to Murder Guide to London (Fido, 1987) Christie was a necrophile, so most of his sexual activities were done after he had strangled his victims. Then he chopped some of them up and dug the bodies down in his garden or under his floorboards until they started to stink (nice fellow - my kind of neighbour...). Like Bundy and most likely the Ripper he was a compulsive sexual killer.
But, as usual, there are a lot of dissimilarities as well, illustrating how difficult it is to focus to much on medical psychological definitions to link killers to one another. The sexual intent is shown in the Ripper's mutilations and focusing on the genitals; in Bundy's case it is in his rapes and his way of plunging things into the vagina of some of his victims. In Christie's case, it is his corpulating with the dead bodies, something we also see in Dahmer's case (although Dahmer isn't a clear case of a full psychopath - he also showed very disorganized traits of mental illness).
To complicate matters further - and to illustrate how hard this is to begin with - we may also acknowledge that the Ripper, like may other serial lust killers left his bodies on display, while Christie, for example, disposed them and buried them.
It is hard for me to give you any medical references, since they are not something I usually try to get too stuck in their generalisations and it has also been a very long time since I've read about these murderers. In any case; I prefer police or criminology related material.
There are a number of books about Bundy on the market and other serial killers, Regarding Bundy I can name Hickey: Serial Killers and Their Victims (1997); Michaud and Aynesworth: Conversations With a Killer (2000) and A&E:s documentary "Ted Bundy: The Mind of A Killer", to name a few.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 762
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
Thanks Glenn,
The reason I asked for a medical reference is that its not usual [or rather up until some ten years ago was not usual] to categorise killers such as Bundy and Christie and as far as I have understood the ripper,him too as psychopaths---in the "classical" sense[medically].
As I have said before the psychopath is not usually a killer in this sense ofsexual/lust murderer.S/he will kill for gain or because someone has got in their way.also as mercenaries etc.This is what troubles me about the term psychopath it always used to have a very precise meaning and you didnt used to get the sorts of people named above lumped in with the term.
In fact most of the truly horrific murders you read about in the press have been committed by paranoid schizophrenics[of the "delusional" kind.]
jtR could have been psychopathic and incorporated features of the "lust" murderer into his act.
Best Natalie |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 564
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:37 pm: | |
Well, I honestly cannot recommend crime library to anyone anymore...I was unaware of the Christie case and thought to look it up there. The account is such a garbled mishmash, I sincerely hope they didn't pay the person who wrote it. It's terrible. Does anyone see the problem with the following paragraph or is it just me:
Originally from Yorkshire, Christie was rather high-strung and he generally relieved stress by gardening. His father had been a severe man who whipped his children whenever he felt like it...
... Christie retreated inside himself, although he learned to exaggerate symptoms of poor health to attract attention. He also developed a horror of dirt.
The account of the murders is just rambling; without an iota of cohesion. Anyhoo..interesting case.
 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:05 pm: | |
1. (Following the Duke Street sighting.) "Hare states quite clearly that psychopath's do not reveal their darker nature to the victims of their manipulations until the person is sucked in deeply to the psychos "web". Therefore, since Levy would have started out with a full awareness of the psycho's nature having seen him slaughter someone, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he would have been drawn in to the "web"."
>>Well, this deserves a multi-part response, I reckon. First, I believe you've pulled a quote out of Hare that may not be representative of all situations regarding psychopaths. It kind of sounds situational-relative to me. What Hare is basically saying I think is that the leech commonly makes the situation look good to the host before he bites him, and not much more than that. According to both Cleckley and Hare, no normal human being can have "a full awareness of a psychopaths's nature" as you say. Cleckley said at the end of his career that the fundamental implications of the psychopathic character were so paradoxical that it was impossible to rationally meet their implications, that he still didn't understand what these people wanted, what made them tick. Keep in mind that this comes from a psychiatrist who is trained to understand the most extremely disturbed schizophrenics, hebephrenics, psychotics and the like. Therefore Levy NEVER understood the murderer and his character, even after the identification. What basically happened is that over the 18-month period following the cessation he came by ruefull experience to get a grip on what he was up against, and at the end he did what he had to do to bail out and save himself whilst still preserving the safety of the Jews of Whitechapel and himself and his family in his mind. Don't forget, Ally, that Whitechapel is full of immigrant Jews, people who lost everything they had in the anti-Semitical pogroms. These folks are terrified of another pogrom in Britain, and the same thing happening to them again. Levy would therefore be unlikely to go to the police following the Duke Street sighting, fearing repercussion from the Jewish community. They'd feel that he should have just shut his mouth and not told the Gentile that a Jew was JtR.
2. "Your instance that we have to read dry academic texts before you will deign to answer our questions reflects more on your lack of answers than on anything lacking in our understanding."
>>The tenor of the last 100+ posts here bears me out: People don't comprehend psychopaths. They've got to study in order to do so. I can only give you answers to the extent you know what I'm talking about, and for that you have to know something about psychopaths. Notice that Ms Severin is spot-on in all discussions.
Copyright David M. Radka 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:34 pm: | |
1. "As you said, it is a "plausible scenario" and the operative word there is scenario. What you have done is compose an outline for a novel or screen treatment of Jack the Ripper. Interesting and inventive in parts, but as often happens with early efforts at fiction it is rather contrived and presents a blinkered view of life."
>>Balderdash. Have you noticed how closely A?R follows the evidence? What other Ripperologist offering a case solution does that? What part of the evidence do you need further explanations of? Tell me, and I'll provide it.
2. "You wrote that "Aaron clearly was not in those houses because Lubnowski and Abrahams wanted him there,..." [emphasis added], but that declaration may say more about you than it does about either gentleman and suggests a truncated appreciation for the dynamics of marriage and extended families. That the two gentleman were loving and caring and willing to accept the burden of a troubled brother-in-law is no less plausible and examples of that behavior abound."
>>I understand the dynamical and elastic nature of mariage partnership. But how would you like your wife to let you know that her schizophrenic brother will be coming to live with you? Would you like that? I don't think so. Revolting uncleanliness, barking like a dog, totally inappropriate behavior, needing to be brought home repeatedly before he hurts himself or someone else, no hope whatever of improvement, and a massive separation from reality may be only some of the aspects of this disease. Factor in that you are struggling to survive in a foreign land in a down economy, with children of your own to feed. Wouldn't you at least hope that your wife wouldn't make THIS demand on you? I can't imagine any husband put into this position being the one to instigate the presence of the schizophrenic, rather, I think he'd tear his hair out trying to find an alternative to it. Now add to that psychopathy, the complete inability on the part of the subject to feel empathy for any other human being, in this case Aaron and his problems. Now do you get my point? If Abrahams or Lubnowski is a psychopath, there is going to be resentment, not love and caring in that household. In any event, there being a psychopathic husband, the dynamics of marriage certainly do not apply.
3. "You did tailor a theory to many of the facts rather than the other way round, but as RJ argued any number of different scenarios could be constructed to satisfy those facts and, despite all your verbiage and academic jargon, your tale is no more convincing than those possibilities and in many instances it is much less so."
Balderdash. I am the first Ripperologist to respect the evidence and not deviate from it anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. Sure, theoretically any number of scenarios could fit the facts, but produce one for us that is significantly different from mine yet analyzes all the evidence in a satisfactory manner. Show us, right here right now.
Copyright David M. Radka 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
1. "P.S. I don't find your Hove explanation is satisfying. London was the largest city in the world. There were a thousand and one places in London for a covert witness parade. I can't believe this is the correct explanation of why it went down in Brighton."
>>It went down in Brighton only because Robert Anderson was a Director of the Convelescant Police Seaside Home. As such, he could make the necessary special arrangements, scheduling the identification "off the books." He made plenty of other special arrangements concernng this case too. After Aaron got back home from Hove, likely Anderson pulled some strings with the City CID to have the house watched, as a way of putting some last-ditch pressure on Aaron and his family to get a confession, so that he could prosecute Aaron. If the Met CID watched the house, as it should have since it was located in Met territory, there would be implications he'd have to explain in his own Department. Anderson was, generally speaking, a string-puller class AAA.
2. "Also, as I stated above. Where exactly was the murderer waiting for the men to depart from the Imperial Club? They stated at the inquest that their departure was dependent on the rain fall ending. It had been delayed. But the PC was passing the entry to Church Passage ever 10- 12 minutes or so. How did Kominski's relative position himself correctly? How did he insure a prostitute would be there? I don't find it credible."
>>The murderer and Eddowes were positioned at the end of Church Passage, which is close to and in sight of the Imperial Club. Patrons exiting the club and turning left toward Aldgate would have to walk right past them. He insured a prostitute would be there by picking one up and leading her there. He could have done this at several places, most likely St. Botolph's Church. Sure the three Jewish men stated that their departure was dependent on the rainfall ending. But it was also near closing time. I believe they basically stayed until closing because of the rain. The murderer roughly based his timing on closing time, to be able to qualify a Jewish witness leaving.
3. "Even if every chosen detail can be meticulous in its logic, might not the theory as a whole remain somehow soul-less because it is too far removed from how humanity operates?"
>>It sure ain't far removed from how psychopaths operate! Check Cleckley out of your local library and see for yourself. The main problem with psychopaths is that the way they operate is so far removed from the way the rest of humanity does that very few people can believe in their existence. Hence, a lack of reasonable defenses against them.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 565
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:50 pm: | |
Here's another:
Eddowes says she was killed on January 2, 1953, while Kennedy places her death closer to January 19th. Since she had visited a medical office on the 12th, where she was tested and determined to be twenty-four months pregnant, Kennedy may be more accurate.
Was she an elephant?
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
1. "I must admit, I do not agree with you, especially in regards to the markings on Kate's face. I'm presuming these are your interpretations of the markings only. How would Levy know what these markings meant anyway?"
>>He didn't. There would be almost no way for him to interpret them, or even get a diagram of them in time to stop him from going to the police, if that were what he was going to do. No one has ever correctly interpreted the markings before. Never assume that when a psychopath plans, it is a good, workable, reasonable plan. Often it is an absurd, self-contradictory, disintegrative one. It was an act of utter pomposity for the psychopath to believe that Levy would receive the information and make the necessary connections, but, here again, utter pomposity is typical of psychopaths.
2. "Also, sorry if this is a stupid question, but what would have made the killer think that Levy would even have seen her face?"
>>No question is stupid here, and I am happy to respond. The killer might have loosely figured that a picture or drawing of the facial mutilations would appear in the next day's paper, and Levy would see it when he arose. Or perhaps it would get to him by some magical word of mouth. Never underestimate what a psychopath may be willing to rationalize as a part of trying to get what he wants.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
"And in the future, it would probably be best not to suggest that we are too ignorant to understand what you mean. If there is documented evidence of previous sexual psychos, who were also while getting off their jollies, creating these grand and elaborate race war schemes (or any other grand elaborate schemes) around their crimes, why not just point them out and say, read about so and so."
>>I don't think anyone here is ignorant! I like the people here, and like being with them myself, and writing to them about opur mutual interests. I do think that Ripperology in general has, to its discredit, ignored psychopathy as an explanation of the case evidence for decades, when it could easily not have. This is in turn mostly because psychopathy is such a dauntingly paradoxical subject. The Whitechapel murderer was not creating any grand and elaboate schemes--he was instead really screwing up. He was foolishly, simplistically and extremely immaturely plugging into whatever ways to take advantage of others and score money he could at the moment, and getting himself into huge, fatal trouble in so doing. He was not bulding up a great plan, he was throwing himself away into a very foolish one.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
"I would have hoped that anybody who had spent time with this subject would have realised that it is simplicity that is the real core."
>>My purpose was indeed to find simplicity, to give a new kind of Ripperology the most essential, most fundamentally critically correct foundation for predication. I believe I found it, that's why I wrote. And that simplest thought, the idea on which everything I write is based, is psychopathy.
Copyright David M. Radka 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
1. "Personally, I am left with the same misgivings I've always had when hearing Mr. Radka discuss his methodology.."
>>Let's be clear for all to see right here that what Mr. Palmer means by this is that he as a sophist has misgivings concerning philosophical methodology, which is what I use. Mr. Palmer has been reading about this ancient disagreement and brings it to A?R. This is certainly not a bad thing, but let's be clear about it so everyone can directly go read about what it is in the 'Encyclopedia of Philosophy.' For a sophist to disagree with a philosopher on method is not necessarily the same thing as to say A?R is invalid. Here then follows a classic contraphilosophical pass:
2. "It seems to me that center---that the the killer is a psychopath--is far too soft and mushy to allow anyone to confidently identify what consistutes the actual "case evidence." So let me pose a question. Wouldn't it be possible for another theorist to fully accept the main "center"--ie., the premise of a psychopath---and yet build up an entirely different explanation with a different catalogue of what constitutes the 'case evidence' and even come up with a different solution? (Ie., might the theory include MacKenzie but dissmiss Stride?; accept the "Dear Boss" but refute the Lusk letter?) It seems to me that answer is "yes." And if the answer is "yes", how can the methodology claim that it leads to determining the truth of what really happened in 1888-1891?"
>>The method I lay down is dynamical in nature. By it, anyone can arrange the case evidence around psychopathy in a different way than I have and get a different solution. In fact there may be an infinity of ways to do this that would give an infinity of solutions. Further, anyone could select any of an infinity of different centers other than psychopathy, and solve the case in an infinity of entirely different ways based on those. You could have Druitt doing it, Mutters Ostrognac, Queen Victoria, anything that could be shown to make some sense I guess. Part of finding the truth is playfulness, openness, asking questions, trying many different things until the best one is found. You find what you look for, but learning what one should be looking for is a part of the experience too. What I present as A?R is my journey in working all these things out for myself. I ran 100 different programs before I found the one that worked--the Summary presents only that one. The ultimate value of it all is logical satisfaction--"What is the most logically satisfactory way to predicate the evidence of the Whitechapel murders?" the basic question.
Notice the sophistical intonation of Mr. Palmer's questions. Generally, sophists think truth is a relative matter of language uses, and the purpose of language uses is to persuade others. Thus he finds what he thinks is unpersuasive in my position, in that I make a speech about how to solve the case that can be immediately undermined by simply offering various different re-arrangements of the evidence. But that dynamism is the strength, not the weakness of A?R. In other words, if anyone thinks they can find a more central center or predicate on psychopathy in a more reasonable, satisfying way than I have, they can go right ahead and refute me.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
"Another thing that bothers me, which also underlines my opinion about the one-sideness in his statements, is the list of sources, which is inadequate and not spread over enough fields and types of literature, in order to be taken seriously."
>>You've got to be kidding. All I gave you to read was the Summary, not the Thesis. The latter has got many sources cited. I have studied many books about psychology and philosophy in a seven-yaer career in arts and sciences at the graduate level, at well regarded colleges. I was awarded over $40,000 worth of fellowships in graduate A&S based on my A&S work, despite that my BS work was in business administration, and mostly due to the related books I thoughtfully read. Additionally, I scored in the mid-700s on the Graduate Record Exams, and consistently have rated 155 and over on other IQ exams. This point is similar to that of Ms Giordano, who found occasion to jump on me in a fallacious manner concerning my citations. You folks out to check out what you are saying before you jump. I will put my education, books read and intelligince up against Mr. Andersson's. I don't believe he knows who he is dealing with.
copyright David M. Radka 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:35 pm: | |
"As someone who is more 'interested' in the mechanics of this killer the theory can be here or there for me. The positioning of the witnesses by the killer would take alot of work and surely some trial and error."
>>Berner Street Witness Positioning: A bit of a tough one here, you're right. On the one hand he could have positioned Stride in front of the IWEC himself, but that would require him romancing her into working for him, an extra step of which we have no direct evidence. On the other, he could have loitered about the north corner of Berner, waiting for a prostitute to take up position near closing time there. It is plausible to think that Stride went to the IWEC herself near closing, hoping to pick someone up as the crowd exited. The murderer did choose the IWEC ahead of time, however, because of the Black Fast. He wanted a disavowing backdrop, in order to coerce his witness. Positioning of Schwartz is perhaps a bit of a sticky wicket too, since the murderer has no control of who passes by and must wait for a Jew heading west on Commercial to take a right turn into Berner. However, this may have happened frequently enough. There may have been a good number of such Jews heading back to their residences from that direction at that time of the night.
In short: Berner Stret is not a straightforward matter, but certainly not beyond the occasional brilliance of a psychopath.
Duke Street Witness Positioning: No sweat, really. Just pick up a prostitute from anywhere, tell her you want to have sex with her in Mitre Square, and pause for awhile at the entrance to Church Passage. Piece of cake.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 566
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:59 pm: | |
David,
If all Levy wanted to do was hunker down, then why expose himself 18 months after the fact? Everything had gone quiet, why risk it? There's absolutely no reason. Your account doesn't make sense.
Your entire theory is based on two things that you have no proof of. Your belief that Levy was Anderson's witness and that he was connected to Aaron. Proof actually does matter because you have built your whole case around these two items---which you can't prove are true. I can build a wonderful case around all sorts of people if I want to invent facts about them. And that's what you have done. There is nothing to suggest that Levy was Anderson's witness...and there your whole theory falls apart.
I appreciate that you want to believe you've solved the case and I appreciate your efforts. But your scenario is convoluted, contradictory and frankly, unbelievable and insupportable. There is bottom line, no reason for Levy to at first refuse to go to the police and point out a Jew, and then 18 months later when things are quiet and he has somehow miraculously managed to curb the impulsed of sexual sadist, for him to go and point out the wrong jew to the police. A person would have to be stupid and gullible to give that credence.
Again, I appreciate the effort that you have put into this work though I remain unconvinced.
Best Wishes,
Ally
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 567
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 10:02 pm: | |
David writes: Balderdash. I am the first Ripperologist to respect the evidence and
not deviate from it anywhere, to the best of my knowledge.
Then where is that evidence that Aaron was related to Levy and that Levy was Anderson's witness?
Oh right...proof, shmoof.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1703
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 10:16 pm: | |
We've kept Radka busy, I see.
Radka writes: All I gave you to read was the Summary, not the Thesis. The latter has got many sources cited. Rambling. Even if you only are presenting a summary, you must know - if you have such a strong university connection (which I suspected) - that such an inadequate list of sources won't do. You must present all your material connected to the whole piece of work. If I had presented my work like that when I was at university, they would have kicked me right out. Or do the US have different and less demanding rules on this subject?
Radka goes on: I will put my education, books read and intelligince up against Mr. Andersson's. I don't believe he knows who he is dealing with. Anytime, Mr Radka, anytime. Although, I didn't know this was a competition ...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 10:21 pm: | |
Ally,
I certainly hope I didn't recommend Crime Library (since you mentioned it)! Anyhow, I agree with you. I think it may work for an over-all view though, but it's true that there is no depth in the factual descriptions, also the disposition of the articles seem to be plucked together in a bit of a mish-mash.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 227
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 11:02 pm: | |
David,
Ah, balderdash, originally a mixture of beer and buttermilk and as revolting a concoction as some Ripper theories. I appreciate your bothering to answer, but having read your screed I stand by everything I wrote originally and you have simply made some of my judgments more manifest.
You have written A solution, not THE solution, whether your ego will allow you to accept that or not. Your initial premise, a Kominski in-law was a psychopath, cannot be shown to be true so you have done nothing but spin a possible scenario from that dubious start.
As for your challenge, easily done but I have better uses for my time. You probably do as well.
Don.
Copy? Right! 2004.3333333 |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 55
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 5:04 am: | |
Hello David,
"Have you noticed how closely A?R follows the evidence?"
Actually, no. I've seen you state that it does, but you don't explain how you came to any of your conclusions. Worse than that, you seem to be saying that the Lusk Letter, Goulston St. Grafitto and the specific witness statements you put your trust in should be accepted as valid and relevant for the sole purpose of advancing your conclusion. This seems like just another example of making the facts fit the theory, which you yourself rightfully chide Cornwell and others for.
What part of the evidence do you need further explanations of? Tell me, and I'll provide it.
Frankly, pretty much all of it needs further explanations. What you've given us so far reminds me of that famous cartoon with a scientist in front of a chalkboard with lots of scribbling and then the phrase "and then a miracle occurs" to explain the end result.
Regardless of your stated intellectual credentials, you need to give evidence to support yourself. Most people only use their intelligence to try to rationalize conclusions they already made instead of looking at things fresh. What really counts is the logic of the explanation, regardless of who comes up with it.
Albert Einstein has become the synonymous with genius because he was able to explain his theories so other people could understand them and test them. He has since been proven right. Einstein wasn't a "proof schmoof" kind of guy, and no one who hopes to be taken seriously should be either.
If you have the evidence, present it. If it takes a while to gather it all up, fine. Don't let the discussion devolve into dueling egos and IQ scores. Nobody wins then.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 6:08 am: | |
Radka,
"The main problem with psychopaths is that the way they operate is so far removed from the way the rest of humanity does that very few people can believe in their existence. [...] Never underestimate what a psychopath may be willing to rationalize as a part of trying to get what he wants."
>>The problem is, with that kind of reasoning you can state almost anything. I admit that it is convenient to first diagnose the Ripper and then build your arguments and explanations around this theory. Still, as long as you don't present a proven link between "the psychopath" and Kosminski, the theory doesen't hold. At its worst, it will only place you among people like Cornwell and Stephen Knight. If you claim to have found the solution, you'll need evidence to back it all up. As Ally has pointed out, would it show that there is no real link between the people mentioned in your "household", then it all falls apart. I don't think it's proven either that Levy was Andersson's witness.
I also find it a bit strange when you say that Ripperology has failed to appreciate the point of psychopathy. That Jack the Ripper was a psychopath (and interpreting his actions from that point of view) has been a tedious assumption for years now; it is hardly a fresh approach to lean against psychopathy in the Ripper case - I would say it's yesterday's news.
Although I admit that your particular methods and conclusions are somewhat ground-breaking - I just can't decide whether that's good or bad.
What I had expected from your work, is more substantial facts to back your theories up, not just another constructed theory based upon an intellectual brainstorming. We have quite a lot of those already. I admit that some of your "findings" opens up to new thinking, but we still need factual evidence. Then, that I consider that your psychological and criminological deductions to be completely wrong, is another question.
Dan is of course right, that your intellectual "challenge" is not worth the money. Such egocentric games are a waste of time, and - as I said earlier - this is no competition. I don't think anyone here really questions your intelligence; at least I haven't - just your explanations.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 01, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 763
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
David,
I have been thinking about the cuts on Catherine"s eyelids.
If they really were as you say or as I understand you to have said then they were very close indeed to this commonly found phenomenon of paranoid schizophrenic psychosis which is an obsession with "the one eyed being who sees all things"[its almost as common as such individuals deluding themselves about being Catherine the Great or Napoleon].
I guess its possible that a relative of Kosminski could have spotted him obsessing about this -probably doing drawings of same and "explaining" same to anyone prepared to listen and if this relative was a psychopath deciding to carve these cuts to add clues/proof to the evidence that he hoped would build up against Kosminski.
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1707
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
I agree with Natalie, that such elements as the marks and cuts on Eddowes' face (which many interprets in a symbolic way) more points to a paranoid schizofrenic or a delusional type than a rational psychopath.
Still, this is a complex matter, and if that is strong enough to label him as such or a psychopath is questionable. He could just as well be a psychopath with strong irrational psychotic traits. Some elements in the Ripper's actions suggests a rather intelligent person as well, so it's tricky.
Personally, I don't buy the far-fetched explanation of the marks being directed to Levy as some sort of message. To interpret them as "tailor marks" is interesting, but probably not of sufficient value. I believe the marks don't mean anything specific, not even to the killer. At least there is no evidence enough or even a legitimate reason to read them as some form of communication. I believe they were just cuts, nothing else. It could of course be that they in some way made sense to the killer, but that is impossible for us to know and find out. Radka's attempt to identify them is not necessarily wrong - just highly speculative and also unsupported.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Hi
i don't know what the copyright law is over their in the USA but i was under the impression (at least in the UK, anyhow) that all you had to do was write down something and it was copyrighted to yourself.
Did i dream this???
C. Jennifer D. Pegg, 2004
The author asserts her moral right to be identified as the author of this work!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jennifer |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
