|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 374
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 12:03 am: |       |
David,
You're free to agree or disagree. You're understanding of psychopathy, appears limited and flawed to me. You seem to be missing the subtlties and have ended up developing a concept that is an interesting mix of schizophrenia, psychopathy, and perhaps a dash of MPD just for good measure. I'm not entirely sure if this is because your reference texts are the equivalent of "Men are from Mars", and other "pop psych" books out there, or not. Regardless, what you've presented is a creative new theory. It's has all the intreage and complexities of the Royal Conspiracy Theories, it has the "link to the common man" like the Maybrick Diaries, and unlike Cornwell's theories, you at least encorporate references to work done by others in the field.
However, no matter "how cartoony" or "from whence I speak" or whatever other interesting turns of phrase you wish to share with us, your theory contradicts itself, demonstrates you have a limited understanding of the psychological disorders you discuss, demonstrates nothing new or novel in it's approach, and in the end, accounts for the data only by telling a story far more complicated than necessary. In other words, your theory is not well supported by the data, and the claim that you're presenting an "alternative ripperology" is basically false, and your theory proves itself to be false.
However, at a micro level, you've made some interesting suggestions. The idea that the fire and the kettle were intended as a "signal" to attract attention to the Kelly crime scene is an interesting one that I've not heard anyone suggest before. Personally, I doubt Kelly had a "whistling kettle" (did these even exist in 1888?) so it's quite possible that such a notion may even post date the murders by requiring a kind of kettle that did not exist. If they did exist, the notion still requires that a specific assumption be made about the type of kettle, and since you like to use logic terms, I'm sure you know what happens to a theory that has to build itself upon a non-verified assumption? That's right, it falls down and goes boom as far as philosophy is concerned.
- Jeff |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 12:14 am: | |
"Read the Summary"
I've read it once but will read it again. I apologize for apparently missing it the first time.
"You're getting way too cute and fancy here." No, I'm not. I'm only asking how you came to make the connection between the mutilations and tailoring symbols.
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1725
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 3:56 am: | |
David David.
You are so confused.
You have read Cleckley and ... BAM!, suddenly you know the truth about psychopathy. I don't think I have ever seen a case where someone so altogether and uncritically buys what a writer says and then tries to construct a Frankenstein's monster on basis of what is nothing else than subjective interpretations. It is just embarrasing.
"The "elaborate scheming" is in your mind, not mine or Jack's. It seems to me you are trying to add all his projects together to see what his big scheme amounts to. That is not how psychopaths operate, however. He is not building anything up by all these antisocial actions, he is instead tearing himself down. [...] I don't see where any position I've taken differs significantly from this one. [regarding "motiveless" murders]"
>>What!!??? You really must be joking here. It doesen't matter if he gets himself into more and more trouble, that is not the point. In your summary you have stated that the reasons for the murders lay in
a) to increase and improve his own position in his house-hold, because of Aaron was taken in and got all the attention, and then to blame the murders on him
b) to provoke the authorities into putting up a reward, and then cash it in himself
I would hardly call that "motiveless". Most lust murderers have no other motive than their own need to kill and mutilate. What you present above is incredibly complex and elaborate - it may fit well in with a psychopath, but it doesen't fit a lust murderer. They don't need those reasons you refer to, which are far from credible to begin with anyway. The notion that Jack the Ripper was a lust murder, is not based on what the crimes scene evidence say, not profiling - empiric or not.
"As I've told you all before, if you walk down the primrose path of empirical-based lust murder as your center, you're going to find yourselves in an inescapable maze. Despite repeated attempts to edify him, Mr. Andersson seems locked into this misconception. Let me point out that psychopathy is a logically antecendent term compared to lust murderer--that's part of why I made it my center. Some lust murderers are psychopaths and others aren't--they are schizophrenics, psychotics, etc. Therefore in the term lust murderer Mr. Andersson has a mish-mash of psychological types which he nevertheless thinks speak univocally, with one voice."
>>Wrong, Radka. You are the one who's stuck in psychological definitions here, not me. I don't deal with psychology at all.
Besides that, you're correct. A lust murderer can have all sorts of different psychological disorders, not just psychopathy. But the term "lust murderer" is the only valid term to use here, and we do know the general traits for how a lust murderer acts, and it's far more consistent with the evidence.
You, on the other hand, are completely stuck with a mish mash of all kind of psychopathic disorders. There are many different kinds of psychopaths, and - like killers and criminals - one psychopath doesen't act or work alike. Most of them are not even criminal. But you are so deeply entangled in Cleckley's interpretations, that you try to combine all those psychopathic traits he presents in one person to make it fit all the loose ends of the case. So actually, what you are doing, is to construct an individual that is built up by a complex maze of different psychopathic traits.
It is all theoretical and academic - and totally unrealistic.
"The police method, empirical-based profiling, and so on are not designed to describe what anybody is really like, taken in and of himself."
>>Firstly, the police themselves don't deal with profiling. Secondly, you are right that the empirical police method is not dealing with deliberate psychological questions (and that is indeed to its advantage). They are only looking at the case evidence, like what they can read from the crime scenes and the witness statements, then they uses their experience from other cases.
That is what you do in a criminal case, not dive deep down in academic, psychological definitions, that merely consists of subjective interpretations from scholars who know nothing about police work and real existing criminals in the first place.
Heck, the scholars and psychologists can't even agree with one another on several important points, so why should we or the police use them as guiding stars in search of a solution?
For some reason you think that Cleckley is synonymous with the ultimate truth. You can't say that about any academic. What they're dealing with is subjective interpretations and personal, academic opinions. Not the general truth - because there exists no general truth in the academic world. Unfortunately that point has eluded Mr Radka.
All the best from Mr Andersson
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:54 am: | |
To avoid misunderstandings, a correction of my last post, passage 4:
The line: "The notion that Jack the Ripper was a lust murder, is not based on what the crimes scene evidence say, not profiling - empiric or not"
shall naturally say
"The notion that Jack the Ripper was a lust murder, is based on what the crimes scene evidence say, not profiling - empiric or not."
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 776
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
David,I understand your point.However my knowledge of mental illness does not come primarilly from books but having worked alongside people suffering from schizophrenia, psychopathic behaviour[that had got them into trouble with the law and people with other forms of mental illness such as manic depresive psychosis and hypermania.
I have also studied these conditions over many years.
the terminology may be modified over the years but the basic condition remains the same.My "hands on" experience was over twelve years ago.
Glenn, I disagree,[["but the term "lust murderer" is the only valid term here"].
If the murderer had schizophrenia then his condition would mean he was not sane and even in Victorian times would have meant that he would not have been hanged for the murders.
Also the sexual ramblings of psychotic schizophrenics have to be heard to be believed because there is always a mish mash of straight ponographic nonsense blended in with often wise comment and reports of "dealings" with supernatural powers.
I would have thought it pretty essential to know in what category of mental condition the ripper fell in order to know what moved him to these actions. If he was schizophrenic certainly it would not have been sex
[as most normal people understand it. In fact a common concern is what the Pope might think of it ,what Buddha might think of this and that [sexually] and this type of nonsensical stuff.
If he was psychopathic on the other hand he would have been likely to have similar sexual feelings [though usually not so strongly]as the average person.The mutilations would have been done as an act of hatred and destruction rather than a masturbatory fantasy or "lust" in my view.
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
I think you're wrong, Natalie.
Well, not regarding the schizofrenic nature. Those people are usually doing things from hallucinatory preferences, like a voice is telling them to do something; there need not necessarily to be sexual implications involved, that's true.
However, as far as psychopathic serial and domestic killers, doing mutilations, are concerned, I don't agree with you at all. Looking at other similar killers perpetrating the same kind of crimes the Ripper did, the origin is sexual and domination fantasies - they may also contain feelings of rage, but not only just!
You are doing the same mistake here as Radka does; you are not looking at the crime scene evidence and the wounds on the victims, but are instead leaning against psychological preferences.
The nature of the killings clearly imply - in my view - that the crimes were committed by a lust murderer, whatever his mental disposition should turn out to be. The mutilations have every indication of a lust murderer, not being performed by someone just feeling rage and being destructive in general.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 777
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
i will qualify what I am saying Glenn.
The mutilations IF they were done by a psychopath would in my view have been done to satisfy rage towards "mother" and the particular site of those mutilations represented most probably the area of womanhood[uterus/vagina]that the murderer most strongly associated with the
woman/women he feared /loved /hated and their perceived power over him.
Therefore the mutilations are representative of fear rather than a deviant sexual appetite such as Bundy had.
NB"mother" having a generic meaning here more than his biological mother who would also be a love/hate figure most likely.
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1729
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Well, Natalie, it could be - although it to me sounds too much of a psychological construction - but I personally disagree.
I could consider it as a combination, but besides that, we have too many cases available where the perpetrator has turned out to be in obsession of very strong and bizarre sexual fantasies (don't confuse this with sexual appetite - that is something else). Then it is of course possible, that they IN TURN derive from other circumstances, originating from childhood experiences - they usually do, as a matter of fact.
But the main driving force for such mutilating murders, referred to as "lust murders" have been twisted sexual perversions, possibly in combination with other stuff like rage and hatred - but not just rage and hatred on its own; if that was the case, there would be a number of other ways to express that.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1730
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
The point is, Natalie, before we get too entangled in psychological issues:
Regardless if these murders are done out of sexual fantasies or just rage and hatred (or both), fact remains, that one can't point at that many cases in crime history, with mutilations in a similar fashion, where there has been a specific, more outlined motive of such complex character as the one(s) Mr Radka describes.
Practically all of them has had no other motive than the crime itself, and the act triggered by compulsive urges. That is the main point and that is why they are called "lust" murderers.
Then, what their childhood experiences show as a background for their mental disposition is another matter, and quite an individual factor to consider. And very much a matter of debate. But the murders are usually done without a specific "motive".
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 03, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
Radka!
"Because Mr. Andersson confines himself to working with a mish-mash of psychological types, he's never going to be able to solve the Whitechapel murders. He's never going to get that break in the case that will enable him to adjust the profile. The case is too old for that."
In contrast to you and several others, I have no intention of solving it. I am just interested in it.
Secondly, I don't use a profile as a starting-point.
And third, the case is certainly way too old for the psychological/philosophical interpretations and speculations of your kind. To claim that this method is more valid in an over 100 year old case than studying the case evidence from a traditional police and criminology perspective is just laughable.
"We're talking about how a psychopath uses tailoring symbols under extreme conditions of time pressure, not the official or proper use of tailoring symbols as promulgated by some authoritive organization like the U.S. Department of Weights and Measures. Perhaps he made up his own tailoring symbols right on the spot, or adapted what he had seen at his local tailor's shop. He needed symbols at the time, so he projected himself through a tailoring motif to get what he wanted."
So, does this mean that we should accept your personal interpretations of the marks, then?
You are not able to actually produce evidence that supports this interpretation and still you are building your argument upon them?
Interesting approach.
I thought you had actually found tailoring marks that showed similarities to the cuttings on Eddowes' face, and that you therefore based your case on that. Well, go figure.
By using such an approach anyone can claim almost anything.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 03, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
hemustadonit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Hi,
"We're talking about how a psychopath uses tailoring symbols under extreme conditions of time pressure [snip] Perhaps he made up his own tailoring symbols right on the spot"
Strange, I thought we were talking about JtR ;-)
They are tailoring symbols he may have made up on the spot??
I think they may be medical symbols he made up on the spot, oh no, a message based on transport signs made up on the spot, oh no banking symbols, maybe building/architectural symbols...
Did I read David had an IQ of 150+?
Yet he resorts to this level of "locical" thinking? They either are verifiable tailoring symbols or they are not (and then the interpretaion of them is an issue); what's with the "he may have made them up on the spot" angle?
Oh well not very "alternative" thinking here is it David? - or am I missing a point and not read my Clerkley?
Personally I think David has a good theory but he seems to be doing exactly what he claims ripperologists have been guilty of and is trying to "force" the evidence to support his theory at whatever cost (they may have been made up indeed -sheesh)
The reliance on the grafitti, the lusk letter, the tailoring symbols, the references to a kettle which may have had a whistling spout etc all seem to be relying on evidence that will bolster his theory/solution.
David disdains of Glenn's evidentiary based approach and then we resort to a "he may have made them up" to make the evidence fit the theory.
Maybe the full "solution" rather than the summary will disclose more on the markings and David doesn't want to tell us yet, but please don't resort to this level of logic David, just simply say you're not prepared to disclose at this moment.
Cheerio,
ian
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 228
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Hello Again All -
I know I said I would depart this thread and I have. However, earlier this morning I was working on something totally unrelated when I had an epiphany that brought my thought process to this thread. It was then that I realized I had quite a few questions that I felt needed to be asked. I was initially going to send David an email, until I realized the odds of him answering it were very low. I decided to post my questions instead so that all who might have them could benefit from his answers. If he answers. Since I haven't read this thread for sometime, I apologize in advance if someone has already asked these questions.
Proposed email is below:
David:
As the author of a newly published summary of a unpublished theory, you open yourself up to all manner of public scrutiny. Lots of people will ask lots of questions. I am one of those people. I, however, am interested in your research methods and perhaps a bit of your history. If you are to be taken seriously, these questions shouldn't be much of a problem to answer in a respectful, professional manner.
None of these questions are an attempt to make you look bad or discredit you. If you take them that way, then re-read them, except more carefully the second time around. I know very little about you other than what I've read on the boards so these questions may or may not have been answered. They are honest questions. By that I mean they are with out malice or ill feeling. They are simply questions that need answers. I imagine these would be the type of questions a journalist unfamiliar with the case who was interviewing you, after you laid claim to solving the case, might ask.
They are also, however, straight forward questions to which I expect straight forward answers. Most of these presume you have an answer other than "None" or "No". If your answer is "None" or "No" then obviously the other questions leading from the original are moot. You've said previously that you would answer reasonable questions and while you did not list your specific definition of "reasonable" I believe all of these fit the generally accepted definition. So, with out further adue:
History:
What and where are your medical qualifications/credentials?
How many psychopath's have you diagnosed?
How many diagnosed psychopath's have you had hands on experience with? (Meaning, how many real psychopath's, not just people you felt were psychopath's).
What was the extent of your experience with said psychopath's?
Of the psychopath's that you have diagnosed, how many have you successfully treated (Don't be coy, I mean the more violent ones, and by treat I mean were you able to stop them from being violent, etc. I do not expect "You can not cure a psychopath")?
Research:
How many actual live qualified psychiatrist's did you consult with in your research (living, breathing, currently educated, PhD wielding ones, mind you. Not ones that can be referenced in a book, unless of course you consulted with them)?
What was the subject matter discussed with said psychiatrist's?
What were their thoughts on any of the subjects you presented to them?
Are you aware that most psychiatrist's do not diagnose people 'psychopathic' anymore and the general consensus is that they are treated and diagnosed 'sociopathic'?
Since Cleckley's book was first published in 1941, I believe, a lot has happened in the world. Including the work and world of a psychiatrist. Things that may not be in Cleckley's book, like the general change in nomenclature of 'psychopath' to 'sociopath'. Don't get me wrong, Cleckley's book has it's place and I am merely suggesting that even since it's last update (1988 if memory serves) discoveries and methods of thinking have changed in regards to psychiatry. In light of this, why did you decide to stick with a more old school methodology and thought process on what a psychopath is or isn't? Why not use something a little more current and up to date? (P.S. I know that you have cited another book as research material, but the title and author escape me at the moment).
There are more, but I think for the moment that these will have to be sufficient. No reason to have a 88 page post :P
Oh, and before you go on and on about what I do or do not know, bear in mind that I've read Cleckley, twice. I've got it in PDF form if anyone would like it.
Awaiting your response,
crix0r
(Message edited by crix0r on May 03, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Extremely good and valid post, Jason.
All those questions of yours are highly legitimate and I myself look very much forward to the answers as well - if they ever arrive.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 230
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Thank you sir Glenn :P
I do hope that it doesn't start a flame war and that the questions are actually answered, not side-step'd, vilified, responded to with a childish response (apparently, I'm a busybodyŽ) as he has in the past or just flat out ignored.
Only time will tell, unfortunately.
crix0r |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
Yeah, Jason.
There is always a risk for such ill-fated side-tracks. Let's hope it doesen't come to that. (Wanna bet? )
We do have enough flame wars as it is, it's true.
Jason, sir - you're hardly a busybody. I want to keep that prestigious status for myself, if possible. I've worked hard for it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 778
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
While I can see your frustration over both the terminology and the possible lack of medical qualifications we may or may not have on this site
I believe you need to take account of the task before us in a rather more flexible manner.
Its my belief that the "evidence" cannot be interpreted accurately without some knowledge of the major psychological conditions.
However I do believe that David"s "method" is valid and original with regards to this case.
He presents us with a "process" to examine the case with.We can reject the conclusion and still set about using that process to see if it may work on other suspects or people connected with suspects/witnesses etc.
You now go on to criticise him for presenting us with a "psychopath" as JtR.Then you ask his qualifications for such a definition with regards to JtR.
The reason people need qualifications with regards to psychiatry is usually so that they can treat and guide treatment,dispense drugs tec not so that they can solve the ripper case.
You have no doubt seen my comments on this thread immediately above.I cite experience I myself have had with individuals termed psychopathic in the ambience of a large mental health hospital some years ago.My work which was as an Art teacher in the psychotherapy dept was supervised at all times by either the head psychiatrist or his substitute[also a qualified psychiatrist].
I would argue that I do not need to be a psychiatrist to be able to talk on this site ,reasonably knowledgeably about what the case evidence suggests with regards to the type of mental disorder the ripper may have had.
Best Wishes Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 779
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
PS Above post addressed to Jason/Crixor.[post number 778].
natalie |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 575
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
So David m'dear,
As we clearly need the 95 theses in it's entirety to fully comprehend, when can we be expecting that?
Lookin forward to it,
Ally
 |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 231
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
Hey There Natalie -
I believe you misunderstood me. Allow me to respond, please.
While I can see your frustration over both the terminology and the possible lack of medical qualifications we may or may not have on this site
Actually, I'm frustrated about neither. Medical qualifications are neither required or touted, for the most part. If I have any frustration in that post it's not at the terminology or the lack of medical credentials :P
In the particular post you reference, I'm not criticizing him at all. I've done that in the past, many times actually. So simple search for my posts should reveal the differences. How can I criticize him if I don't know the answer to the questions?
I'm simply trying to understand him and his thought process a little more in depth. What better way than to ask a few questions? This is why I predicated my questions with, "This is not an attempt to discredit you" (paraphrasing). Did cha miss that part?
I believe you need to take account of the task before us in a rather more flexible manner.
Its my belief that the "evidence" cannot be interpreted accurately without some knowledge of the major psychological conditions
To some extent, I agree. However, I do not have illusions of grandeur or really have any hope of solving the case. It interests me, that's it.
I would argue that I do not need to be a psychiatrist to be able to talk on this site ,reasonably knowledgeably about what the case evidence suggests with regards to the type of mental disorder the ripper may have had
And I would agree. I never mention or implied that one needed to be a psychiatrist to post on these message boards, nor would I. I am simply asking him some questions about his history and research methodology. I see this akin to someone asking Einstein how he came to any of his conclusions (Note that I am NOT comparing Einstein to David Radka, it is simply an example). This is done all the time and shouldn't offended anyone.
crix0r
(Message edited by crix0r on May 03, 2004) |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 780
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
OK Crixor your response reassures and thanks for responding so promptly and so on.
I was getting bothered that medical qualifications were being needed here to solve the case.
No that sounds reasonable what you say.
Best Natalie. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 234
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Glad I could be of some assistance, Natalie. I think it rather snazzy of you to have done what you used to do. I'm color blind, so I didn't fair well in art class
While I am not a large fan of David's theory, I do think he has the right to say his peace, even if I don't agree with it... What is it Voltaire said...
"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it"
Let's see if he is of the same mindset.
crix0r |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 781
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Cheers Crixor,Well it wasnt exactly a bundle of laughs"s.
Anyway good luck!
Best Natalie |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
1. "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."
>>Levy commits himself to going head-to-head with the psychopath for the rest of his life when he contacts him following the Miller's Court affair. Each man now has the other as a tiger by the tail. Levy had hunkered down following Duke Street, and he hoped for a hunker down scenario following contact based on his knowledge of the murderer's identity and pre-emptive ability to put him on the gallows. But what Levy GOT was a much heavier burden than what he THOUGHT HE'D GET by making contact. The psychopath pays lip service to Levy's pre-emptive ability to identify him, he doesn't commit any more mutilation murders, but that's about as far as his cooperation goes. He uses every technique he can to bargain unfaithfully for privileges within his confinement, probing Levy for any weakness to use in getting under his skin. Remember, Aaron is still a cause of vexation for him, plus Aaron retains some value as a proxy suspect in terms of the reward. The psychopath may have precipitated the identification somehow, by calling police attention to Aaron in some way, thus putting great pressure on Levy. Eighteen months after the cessation, Levy has endured enough damage to his heart valves and just wants out, provided he can get out in such a way as to keep the Jewish people safe. His mounting sense of being overwhelmed by the psychopath's power trip is why he turns Aaron in.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
1. "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."
>>This is not my position. The murderer did not allow himself to be seen twice as a way of allaying his fear that he might be caught. He had no fear that he would be caught because he was incapable of fear. He allowed himself to be seen, in a fearless manner, in order to qualify Jewish witnesses at two different crime scenes, so as to affirmatively permit the payment of the reward. You are confusing psychopathy with delusions.
2. "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""
>>Psychopaths are only minimally capable of anger. They do not experience rage. They do not "take out" their anger on others. They are unaware of the seriousness of the harm they are doing to the other, whereas angry people revel in the harm they do to others. You are describing a normal person, perhaps a psychotic one, but certainly not a psychopathic one. You claim knowledge of psychopathy, but have none.
3. "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."
>>Well, the WM didn't exactly give himself away at the crime scenes, did he? He remained silent, got away in time, eviscerated Annie Chapman in the corner as opposed to right in the middle of the yard, etc. He was taking some, albeit foolishly inadequate evasive measures, and he believed supremely in their efficacy in an egocentrical manner.
4. "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."
>>According to Cleckley, psychiatric examination
does not reveal the presence of delusions in psychopaths, thus the paradoxicalness of their pathology. This means all psychopaths, serial killers and non-serial killers.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
"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."
>>With respect to motivation the opposition here is not limited to rational vs. irrational, but also includes adequate vs. inadequate. The underlying reason why a psychopath's actions may not make sense to a normal person may be because he is not adequately motivated to do what he does. An example from Cleckley would be selling all his expensive new clothes for a few dollars sufficient only to purchase a few candy bars, leaving himself without enough clothes to wear. This is what we see in the WM, not delusions. Several writers here have repeatedly swung and missed on this issue--it is now getting pretty boring to have to correct them over and over. The only motivation the WM had which may have been adequate to do what he did, and this would merely be an accident on his part or an inconsistency in his inconsistency, was the desire to pursue the reward. The amount of the reward, if augmented by the Home Office, woud have been big enough to do what he did to get it, at least from the point of view of a callous criminal. The rest of what he did is basically just childishness--actions for which motivation is inadequate in the adult sense. He was not deluded in his thinking when doing these things, he was personally defective--defective in the sense of not knowing what was good for him in the long run.
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.
|
|
|
|
