|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1739
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 4:39 pm: |       |
Radka,
"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."
What an incredible load of garbage and crap!
What in God's gracious earth are you talking about? Was the person in Cleckley's example (fictional or not) a mutilating serial killer?
For heaven's sake and for the last time: I am talking about a serial lust killer here doing mutilations on his victims - you are still hung up on psychopathy and your own personal interpretations of it (or should I say Cleckley's?).
Put down your textbooks, Radka. This is getting tedious.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
Yes, even though I'm not contributing to this thread it is giving me a headache.
He's had his fifteen minutes.
Let him paint cans of beans.
On another channel. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 782
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,now its my turn to be confused!
It seems only a little while ago that you were arguing that JtR was an "organised/disorganised"killer.
now you are saying he was a "serial lust Killer"
have you changed your view?
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 375
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
David,
Given the level to which you apparently read my posts, I guess it's understandable why you are having so much trouble understanding the books you're reading. Psychopaths are more than capable of experiencing rage and anger. They experience all sorts of emotions, provided that the emotion is centred upon themselves. If a psychopath feels they have been "wronged", they become hugely frustrated and angry, what they don't care about is the reverse. If they perform an action that "wrongs" someone else, they do not consider the other person's "response" (i.e., the other person becomming angry/frustrated) is valid. This is because when they are the perpetrator of the action that wrongs the other, the action is meant to fulfill their wants (the psycopaths). Fulfillment of their wants is all important; their emotions all focus inward, or more plainly, are all self-centred.
Glenn's presentation of a "lust murderer", remember, is not a psychological diagnosis. It's a classification of criminal behaviour, or "criminal types". Lust murderers may be psychopaths, they may be schizophrenic, they may be neither, etc.
Starting from a psychological disorder and working out is not a recommended strategy because most individuals with psychological problems are not criminal, and certainly not serial killers.
Which means, most of what we know about the psychological disorders comes from people who do not perform the kind of actions we have to work from.
This is where inductive profiling of criminal personalities comes into play. You look at people who have committed similar kinds of crimes, then from that data base, you look for things that separate those particular criminals from criminals who committ other crimes. If you can find such information, then when presented with the new case, you can make some inferences about the person who comitted these crimes. Because you are making inferences based upon information gained from other crimes, and trying to make a prediction about a specific individual who comitted the current crimes, not all the inferences will be correct. But, if the original study is done properly, and if it is valid to generalise the pattern and associations found from the original data set to those outside that set (and there are ways to statistically test such models), then you do get useful investigative information (not probative, meaning not admissable in a court of law).
Glenn's focus on using criminal behaviour classifications is a much better starting point, and would be a much more suited "centre" upon which to build a theory. Why? Because at least the people who in the past have been classified as "lust murderers" have, in fact, committed crimes. Psychopaths, and schizophrenics, however generally do not. Most psychopaths are not criminals (yes, they are more likely than non-psychopaths to get in trouble with the law, but that's not the same thing as saying "most psychopaths are criminals"). Most schizophrenics are not criminals.
By definition, all Lust murderers are criminals. And, as it turns out, they are criminals who have comitted similar kinds of crimes as JtR.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1740
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Thank you, Jeff. Thank you indeed!
You've not only seen my points here. You also perfectly describes everything I always wanted to say on this thread, but not at all times have been capable of doing myself. Excellent!
"..."lust murderer", remember, is not a psychological diagnosis. It's a classification of criminal behaviour, or "criminal types". Lust murderers may be psychopaths, they may be schizophrenic, they may be neither, etc.
Starting from a psychological disorder and working out is not a recommended strategy because most individuals with psychological problems are not criminal, and certainly not serial killers. [...]
Because at least the people who in the past have been classified as "lust murderers" have, in fact, committed crimes. Psychopaths, and schizophrenics, however generally do not. Most psychopaths are not criminals (yes, they are more likely than non-psychopaths to get in trouble with the law, but that's not the same thing as saying "most psychopaths are criminals"). Most schizophrenics are not criminals. By definition, all Lust murderers are criminals. And, as it turns out, they are criminals who have comitted similar kinds of crimes as JtR."
I certainly couldn't have said that better myself. Touché!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1741
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:59 pm: | |
Natalie,
What!??
It's been a long time since I argued that JtR was a disorganized killer, or even used the terms organized/disorganized. Several months ago.
Yes, I've changed my mind on several counts since then - especially as far as profiling and the psychological aspect is concerned. At least that issue is no longer that much of interest to me.
I have always stated that Jack was a serial lust killer, though, and I will continue to stand by it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1742
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 6:07 pm: | |
Now, I believe I have contributed to give Mr Radka more attention than what's good for him,
so I'll take AP:s very intelligent advice and let Radka have his own ball court to himself (let's see how long that one will hold...  ), and instead switch over to watch an American program called "World Poker Tour" on television. Strangest sports program I've ever seen.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 03, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 783
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
I am clearer about this serial lust killer definition.Thanks Jeff.
Also Glenn No I did not know you had changed your mind on this.
But thanks both of you for your posts.
Natalie |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 9:32 pm: | |
Unfortunately for Mr. Radka, the major plank of his theory is wrong. Anderson's witness was not Levy; the existing records disproves such a claim. With that alone, the great golden orb implodes. RP |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 377
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 12:32 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I think what makes it easy for me to understand what you were getting at is that I'm fairly familear with both psychology and criminal profiling. Psychology is my area of research. (Although I fully admit I don't do research into clinical disorders, nor am I clinically trained. Regardless, I am familear with clinical disorders to a limited extent.) Criminal profiling is an area I find interesting, both as an academic area and for it's potential utility. I guess it's because of my "dual exposure" that I'm well aware that the two sets of classifications are not intended as being interchangable. That's all.
Anyway, I'm glad that what I posted was able to help.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 378
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:15 am: | |
Now let's see,
David's theory hinges on Aaron Kosminsky being taken into a household due to his mental illness. This is the initial trigger event because it is when JtR has his authority over-ridden by the female.
But, as RJ pointed out a while back, Aaron did not suffer his first attack until 1889 or 1890. So, the available evidence actually goes against the theory's premise that Aaron was a convenient scapegoat for the Ripper.
Remember, David cannot demonstrate Aaron was suffering from his disorder at the time he would have to be in order for his theory to work. He has to make the assumption that Aaron was suffering from schizophrenia before his first recorded attack. David has to change the evidence we have into the evidence he needs.
David cannot place Aaron as living in the household. But, nobody has figured out where Aaron was living at that time. So David's theory hinges on the assumption that Aaron moved in to this house in 1888. Assumptions are not good things to lay a theoretical foundation upon. (Note, this kind of assumption has gotten P.Cornwell slammed; can't prove he was in London, so let's just put him there). David, why don't you just put Aaron in France? Oh yah, then the data wouldn't fit your theory. But David, an assumption isn't data; you're making up stuff to make it sound like a fact.
David's theory critically employs that the marks on Eddowes' face are tailoring symbols intended to send a message to Levey. David has recently admitted that the symbols are not universal tailoring symbols but rather are "tailoring symbols the Ripper may have just made up". In otherwords, the marks are not tailoring symbol at all. They are cuts that David has decided are tailoring symbols so that he can attribute a message to them. He can then also attribute an intented reciever of that message. And, all he had to do was make up what Eddowes Killer intended when he cut her face.
David's theory has JtR very concerned about the public reaction to a play; Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. This is a Victorian era version of "TV made me do it", or "Rock music made me do it". Are David's suspects of an income bracket where going to live theatre would be something they could even afford to do? Let's pretend they could afford to, and did. Just for a jolly. No proof necessary though. We haven't needed it up until now so why start?
The fact that the Ripper is spotted at two murders (I'll include Stride as a Ripper victim since David does; normally I would caution such an assumption) leads to the conclusion that the Ripper wanted to be spotted. This, of course, fails to mention Mrs. Long who appears to have spotted the killer of Annie Chapman. I don't think Mrs. Long was Jewish. Was she allowed to spot him to qualify a female witness? Since the theatre is partly to blame in David's theory, what about GH's toff suspect? He at least looked like he could afford the theatre (almost sounds like he was just back from watching a show too!) Was GH an intended witness too? Was he now qualifying GH, a gentile, in order to prevent gentiles testifying against him because that would Stirr up anarchy (Jews against gentiles, etc?). Why didn't he try and send GH a message? I mean sure, we can say that qualifying GH makes no sense because why would a gentil worry about testifying against a Jewish Ripper?, but hey, in David's theory it doesn't have to because his suspect just has to believe this would work (but he's not delusional remember, because Cleckly tells us psychopaths are not delusional, and it's part of the epistomological centre that JtR is a psychopath and that the "answers" are found in Cleckly, right?)
Oh yah, and David's theory is a vast improvement over traditional Ripperologists who twist the evidence to fit their theory. Don't forget that part.
Actually, I realise I'm being a bit saterical, but in light of David's style of response I don't think I'm being overly harsh.
- Jeff |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
I have to credit Glenn for changing his mind over the past months, and also admitting so. Wish that more people were willing to evolve their beliefs.
Kelly |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 19
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Jeff, your last 2 long posts really have said it all. Thank you.
Mags |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Kelly,
Never stopped evolving me. Always changing.
I see myself as a small vole like creature in this Ripper world. Cant wait till I transform into a rat...or maybe a platypus.
Its important to evolve. Dont want to become extinct. We all know what happend to Raphus cucullatus Stephen Knightus.
Nasty.
Kudos to Glenn anyway.
Monty
I don't share your greed, the only card I need is
The Ace Of Spades.....and dont forget the joker  |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 622
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi All
I would have to agree with AP, Glenn and those who believe that we may be spending too much time on this thread. 264 posts in a short span of time on a scenario without a named suspect is more than enough attention to the theory presented.
I understand that we will all be 'floored' when the suspect is finally revealed. Perhaps more than just the identity of JTR will be disclosed. Perhaps contained within the full document we will find the meaning of life itself.
All The Best
Gary |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
"Unfortunately for Mr. Radka, the major plank of his theory is wrong. Anderson's witness was not Levy; the existing records disproves such a claim. With that alone, the great golden orb implodes."
The existing records tell us no such thing. We don't know who Anderson's witness was. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1746
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Hi Kelly and Monty,
Thanks for the kudos.
To change your mind about something you had very strong feelings about, is not easy but - I feel - necessary. A lot of things happened to me during my trip to London in February, which made me look at some things differently.
We are all part of a learning process and, as Monty says, it is very important to evolve. Of course, I belong to those who have very strong opinions about a lot of things, which makes it ten times more painful to do account with yourself and change your positions, but that's just who I am.
I will probably continue to argue as heavily in the future - and maybe change my mind again, if necessary. I have no sense of prestige whatsoever in those matters.
As been said many times before, the Ripper case is possibly one of the best examples we have of the paradox, "the more we learn, we less we realise we can be sure about".
All the best
P.S. Monty! New signature, eh? Is the group disbanded?
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:43 pm: | |
Scott wrote:
>>The existing records tell us no such thing. We don't know who Anderson's witness was.
That is of course true. We can't be sure of this - there are some points suggesting that it may have been Lawende, though, rather than Levy, and that would be my very personal guess. But we will probably never find out for sure anyway.
As I see it, everyone who relies their case on "Anderson's witness" ends up in trouble since we have very little facts to support either of the candidates.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 04, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Mr Radka, you wrote
"The thimble was very likely her own, and she merely had a habit of wearing it on her finger. There is no evidence the murderer placed it on her finger"}.
Now I know that this is irrelevent, but there is no evidence either that Eddowes was in the habit of wearing a thimble on her finger.
So did the murderer place the thimble on her finger, or was Eddowes in the habit of wearing a thimble of her own?
Whose version of the fact that Eddowes was wearing a thimble when she was murdered is actual reality?
Yours or mine?
The point I am trying to make is that you can take any of the concrete evidence we have regarding this case, (the thimble on Eddowes finger, the two V’s carved into her face, the fact that Chapman's rings were missing and her belongings neatly laid out at her feet, the removal and taking away of Eddowes Kidney, etc,) and theorise until you are blue in the face as to why the killer carried out these actions.
Trouble is though that that's all they are, theories, only the killer can enlighten us as to why he took Eddowes kidney, why he cut two V shapes into Eddowes face, why he decided to kill two women in one night.
The fact is, since he’s been dead these last hundred years, I don’t think were going to find out either.
Let me further demonstrate to you then, the folly of taking the known facts and concocting a story to fit them, oh and then telling the whole world that you David Radka have finally solved the identity of Jack The Ripper.
You wrote.
"How would you know which direction he was "heading" in, just by the location of the apron? He could have bounced in 20 different directions in the 40+ minutes before the graffitus appeared, and 20 more before he went home after placing the apron. He wrote the graffitus in the Jewish street market to have an impact on that when it would open shortly. The location does not indicate any direction in which he was "heading."
Are you saying that he dallied around the area for 40 minutes, before going home?
Self preservation doesn’t seem to be one of your suspects finer points, does it?
No, I think you will find that most people are of the opinion that P.C. Long missed the piece of apron first time around, and that in all probability the killer made straight for home, after he had murdered Eddowes.
That is in an Easterly direction.
So what is it to be, straight home. Or walking about (the by now police infected area, for 40 minutes) with Eddowes kidney in his pocket?
Which of the above is more likely?
Which of the above is reality?
Can you detect a slight hole appearing in your theory?
No, I don’t suppose you do, but here is the rub, if your theory is destined to become a book, a lot of people will pick at your theory, in the above manner.
Secondly, can I ask you a question? Have you really studied all the aspects of this case? I ask this because I think one of the contributors to this thread caught you on the hop regarding the chalk, i.e. where did the killer get the chalk, to write the graffiti in Goulston Street.
I don’t think you’d thought this one out, as in your answer to this contributor, you waffled on about the killer roaming about Spitalfields Market looking for chalk. It seemed to me as if your explanation was written hastily, and on the hoof.
Another poster subsequently wrote.
“Why didn’t the killer simply take some chalk with him on the night of the murders”,
I bet you wished you’d thought of that.
Does the fact that the killer slinks about Spitalfields Market, looking for chalk, appear in your full theory?
It's got to now hasn't it, you've said as much.
All in all Mr Radka you want to thank the contributors to this forum, for reading through your summary, and pointing out to you the potential pitfalls in your theory, in order that you can correct them (the pitfalls) by the time your book comes to light.
Which is why it was very clever of you to only post your Summary on these messageboards, that way, you can try and plug any holes that are revealed by the contributors to this thread.
Lastly do you really believe you have solved this case Mr Radka, or are you in it for the money?
If your theory is published as a book how many people do you think will believe your story?
Surely you are in this for the money.
P.S.
You wrote.
“There is no evidence to indicate where Aaron was living during the Terror”.
I’d like to bet there is.
Blowing ever harder.
Cludgy.
|
hemustadonit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Hi,
[Glenn said:]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."
[Radka said:] 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.
I seem to have missed the bit where we actually proved the murderer (phsycopath or not) had any interest at all in the reward - the logical opposition to that is... he simply didn't?
David you seem to be working with "facts" that you have not shared with any of us?
Much the same way as you state almost as fact the idea that the psychopath was after stirring up as much trouble as possible between gentile and Jew - the logical opposition of this is... he didn't.
Much the same as he was tryiong to blame Aaron, the logical opposition to this is.. he wasn't.
Much the same as the "fact" that he left tailoring marks on the victims, the logical opposition of this is... he didn't.
The "fact" that he felt a need to be witnessed by Jews - the logical opposition to this is well, you can guess... he didn't
etc, etc, etc...
Are all these aspects covered in the full theory? as it is tedious (and futile) for your audience to fight against a theory they haven't really seen.
If so "publish and be damned". It would probably produce a lot less questions as the theory would/should provide detailed answers to most of the questions.
I'm not sure whether your solution is suppopsed to be fiction or fact - you obviously seem to be trying to put yourself in what you think is JtRs mind, the mind of a pyshcopath, and just inventing any old reason/justificastion/motivation and then saying, if anyone criticises, that it's not expected to be understood by normal people
a psychopath's actions may not make sense to a normal person
What makes you think your alternative can understand and even guess at a specific psychopaths reasoning and _very_ detailed motivation and yet not expect to be simply cast off as simply guessing or fabricating?
It may be a psychopath's work but I can't understand the "flights of fancy" you are making with inadequate evidence without thinking of icarus (sp).
Cheerio,
ian
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
"Police officers work from what they know and the knowledge they have gained from other cases. Experience beats everything. The theorists - stuck behind the academic walls and and their oak desks - have to construct a subjective reality from their experiments and textbooks."
>>Cleckley's case histories are based on his 30-year direct experience interviewing psychopaths, not theories he constructed sitting in an ivory tower. He wrote the textbook on psychopathy himself, he didn't obtain his knowledge of these people merely by reading about them in textbooks. Mr. Andersson will say anything that will make him feel good for a few seconds, regardless of its truth value. He depends on a lack of thoughtfulness of people reading his posts to swell his ego. He is probably good at staring people down in conversation, a steady glare or being tall gets this done well enough.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
"Just to clarify your posts above, no-one Cleckley studied was a serial sexual or lust murderer or, for that matter, even a murderer. Further, you admit you cannot point to a single case in the history of serial sexual or lust murders which involved even so much as a similar type of killer as you propose for your identification of JTR in terms of motivation and behavior. Therefore, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Ripper murders were perpetrated by an individual unlike any who has ever been identified or studied. Thus, the JTR murders can only be understood by accepting that you are the only one who has, as yet, been capable of relating the garden variety psychopath with his sexually motivated serial killing brethren. Interesting!"
>>This is a serious incompetence with respect to understanding and maintaining distinctions. The only difference between the psychopaths Cleckley studied and Jack the Ripper was, perhaps even a passing, taste for blood. I have a taste for seafood, my cousin doesn't--does that in itself make her terribly different from me? Keep in mind that for a psychopath killing a human being has no greater emotional component than slicing an orange. He can very easily move from not being a SSK to being one given the appearance of a minor catalyst in his life. I am getting tired of this oft-repeated refrain that I've completely or even intentionally misread my sources. You folks ought to bone up on what I'm discussing before you try to cut me down.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 8:59 pm: | |
"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."
>>No reconcilliation of all the case evidence in light of psychopathy as an epistemological center was ever done prior to my A?R. The case was entirely centerless before me. Thus I have a revolutionary approach, not merely a fresh one, on the two most fundamental counts.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
"Then where is that evidence that Aaron was related to Levy and that Levy was Anderson's witness?"
>>These oppositions are logical, not empirical in nature.
For Aaron:Levy: 1. Levy is the witness who knows the man in Duke Street. Established by his own remarks to Harris, the markings on Eddowes' face, the graffitus, and so on. 2. Levy is Anderson's witness, who falsely identifies Aaron. Established by the fact that something happened to make Anderson believe that the murderer had been identified, despite that he would not swear to the man in court, and the Swanson marginalia naming "Kosminski."
For Levy:Anderson: 1. Levy was a Jewish male witness who "had a good look at" the murderer. 2. He behaved aversively to the press and the coroner, as if he "knew something." 3. The witness refused to permit publicity of his identification of Aaron, or to swear to him, an extraordinary arrangement. 4. He has a good reason to identify Aaron: to escape the depredations of the psychopath.
These are just the essential oppositions. Given the opportunity, I could broaden them out considerably phenomenologically.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 9:15 pm: | |
"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]."
Natalie,
Perhaps you are right, but how do you know that "the one-eyed being who sees all things" was reported by schizophrenics of London in 1888? There is no record of Aaron Kosminski making a report of this.
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.
|
|
|
|
