|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 8:34 pm: |       |
Hey Everybody,
I just have a comment and am sorry if someone has mentioned this already....regarding Anderson's witness. If he had of Identified
Kosminsky even for a second and changed his mind or whatever, his identification (or attempted identification) of suspects a few years later
would be totally useless and unreliable because he had already identified Kosminsky. What Im saying is that he was Locked into that ID. If, when he saw Kosminsky, he said "yea, thats him", or whatever and decided not to testify, Then WHY would the cops use him to Id Grainger and Sadler years later? I hope that made sense.
Paul |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:10 pm: | |
"The existing records tell us no such thing. We don't know who Anderson's witness was."
Oh no? O.k. then.
The beauty of it, though, is that one doesn't even need to know who Anderson's witness was to know it wasn't Levy.
Let's say it's Schwartz. Could be. Or Violenia. Or Lawende. Or Jewish PC #XYZ . All possible.
However, Anderson's own statement (which is not contradicted by Swanson) is that the witness was the only man to have had a good look at the Ripper. The only... Where does the historical record support the possibility that this could be Levy? Two different official reports filed by Swanson (one in October and one in November) state explicitly that Lawende was the important witness that night in Duke Street. Swanson doesn't even bother mentioning the other two men by name (Levy & Harris) dismissing them as being unable to even give the beginnings of a description. But not so with Lawende. His description is wired to the stations and he revisits the case in 1891 (at the same time as Kosminski's appearance) during the investigation of Sadler. So if Anderson is referring to Levy, what happens to Lawende? If he were referring to Levy there would have been two witnesses. The two men were standing a few feet away from each other and all indications are that Lawende had the better view. One could even say that if Levy had refused to testify the Met still could have fallen back on Lawende (or at least made an acknowledgement of his existance in Anderson's statement). "The only.." All speculations aside, I don't see how you can make Anderson's statement (or the record) 'fit' Levy.
Let me work a conspiracy theory, though. We know the three Jewish gents were tracked down by the City Police. Swanson tells us this. Let's say they "gave" the Met Lawende, but they held back on Levy, keeping him secret. They wanted the upper-hand over the Met. Then, two or three years or so later Anderson & Co., discover Levy's importance. Could this work? No. unfortunately not; we'd still have the "two witnesses" problem, and it still wouldn't explain why Lawende was being used during the Sadler investigation. But more to the point, Major Smith would have known about Levy and he was openly hostile to Anderson's story of the witness.
Finally, a few years later (1895 I think) it was reported in the Pall Mall Gazette that a police witness was brought in to try and identify Grainger. Philip Sugden speculates this was Lawende. We don't know, of course, if it was the famous Jewish witness. But could it have been Levy? Probablyy not. He disappeared from the trade indexes in 1892.
In short, I don't buy Mr. Radka's identification.
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Hey RJ,
That was sort or what I was saying in my above post.
Paul |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 11:21 pm: | |
Paul--You make a valid point, of course. I think at the very least the A?R theory would need to tackle why Anderson refers to one special witness when there was, in fact, another man standing three feet away who was afforded great importance by Swanson, saw the same thing (or actually more) and was used by the police in 1891. But no doubt Mr. Radka has given these matters consideration, and I'll wait for his response. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
I believe I've trolled through the whole of the accumulated archives to date, and have answered all the questions found there. Whew! There were lots. (I don't mean the "last day" questions--I haven't gotten into them yet.) If you have a question from the archives (through May 3) that I haven't addressed, please move it up to the current postings, and I will answer it.
I have 3 things to say about the archived posts at this time:
1. Mr. Andersson is getting tedious with repetition of the same points over and over. I believe I have answered all of them adequately, and will be decreasing my responses to him as much as I can, until he asks about something different. I would like the new Editors to look into this matter when they get a chance, please. Thank you.
2. Mr. Mullins will not be responded to. All he knows how to do is force himself on us, not respond thoughtfully to what I have written. If anybody thinks he has a point, then incorporate it in your own post responsibly, and I will address it.
3. I am very grateful for the opportunity to share my theory and be with all of you these days to discuss it. I would like to humbly thank the Owner and Editors of the web site. Just as much, I appreciate and value the posters, even those who disagree with me or try to injure me. I know that they are trying to deal with very difficult material, just as I have tried to do. I thank God for what I have, and ask Him to bless you all.
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:58 pm: | |
1. "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."
>>I've got experience and training related to knowing how to read and make interpretations of the kind of texts psychiatrists write. What is wrong with subjective interpretations? Basically I'm a bright fellow, and I'm employing my central nervous system to interpret texts, writing up the results, and putting them in front of the public so they can decide what they think of it. What is essentially dishonorable, unclean, inadequate, or fallacious about that? Isn't that how huge numbers of texts are interpreted? You don't have a legitimate criticism of me, you have loutish insults best reserved for barnyard use.
2. "(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.
>>Funny, I thought what we were here to do was respect the evidence of the case. Everything I write is based on what the crime scenes say, and what they say is that the murderer was erratic and inconsistent, sometimes pursuing a lustful motive, other times rational ones. If you want to solve the case, pay attention to the crime scenes.
3. "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."
>>The notions that all psychopaths are both similar to one another and highly prone to antisocial or criminal activities is found throughout the professional literature. I believe in your stubborness you simply don't appreciate how to read and interpret texts. Otherwise, you'd never make gross mistakes like this.
4. "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."
>>Perhaps the best novel ever written about psychopathy is "The Incredible Charlie Carew" by Mary Astor. It is told from the viewpoints of Charlie's parents, siblings, child, and wives, all of whose lives he wrecks in one way or another, including his own. It is a long novel, rich with situations showing Charlie's psychopathic nature. EVERY SIGNIFICANT SITUATION IN THE NOVEL IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM HERVEY CLECKLEY'S CASE HISTORIES! THE FICTIONAL CHARLIE IS ACTUALLY NOTHING MORE THAN AN AMALGAM OF ABOUT TWENTY OF CLECKLEY'S NONFICTIONAL PSYCHOPATHIC PATIENTS! THE NOVEL IS WRITTEN IN THIS MANNER TO ILLUSTRATE THAT PSYCHOPATHS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO ONE ANOTHER--THEY FOLLOW THE SAME STRATEGIES, DO THE SAME THINGS, RUIN THEIR LIVES OVER AND AGAIN THE SAME WAY! THIS IS TOTALLY REALISTIC!
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
"...it must then be remembered that Philosophers like Socrates and Plato accepted as the basis for many of their arguments, as an accepted truth, that the world was under the control of the Gods, that the sun, moon and stars were Gods, and that solar eclipses were omens and portents from the Gods which required interpretation."
>>This is very foolishly written. If Socrates and Plato had not been able to tell the difference between reason and superstition, how do you explain that they have been considered philosophical titans for 2,300 years, and still seriously studied today? Once you try to raise the bar of Ripperology, it seems, every scurvy rat jumps out of the bilge to scurry under.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
D, Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
"The theorists are no alternative - they work from a theoretical ground that has nothing to do with reality, but which they have to construct. They hardly get it right anyway; if the police had failed to the same extent as academics and theorists have done in police cases, we really would be in big trouble.It is from the theorists and armchair detectives, that the most hillarious and far-fetched theories are originating from, and that is no mystery."
>>Massively biased and one-sided. How anyone reading this thread can give credence to what this poster writes is beyond me. "Nothing to do with reality," eh?
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
"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."
>>As you describe it, the above does NOT "fit in well with a psychopath." You are bastardizing my position on the case, so as to better be able to shoot me down in your bastardized form. I wouldn't think of the murderer as the grand Apollinian designer as you seem to do. He wasn't committing himself in an integrated way to building up plans, instead, he was suffering the results of disintegratively ruining himself and others around him. What he did was self-contradictory in terms of "increasing and improving his own position in his household," for example. He childishly externalized his home situation into simply co-opting the Mansfield play to get attention, and the likely results of doing so were incarceration and hanging, certainly self-contradictory toward getting a better deal at home. He is not building up a structure, he is falling into a hole of self-contradiction, consistent with his character as a psychopath.
Mr. Andersson is becoming tedious. As often as he is disproven, he simply rewords the same position on his next post. He has many times posted the same things, such as Jack was a lust murderer, he couldn't have had detailed rational goals, academics don't know what they are doing and the police do, etc. I would like the new Editors to take a look at this please, and see what they can do about it. At some point I'm going to have to just stop responding to Mr. Andersson due to constraints on my time--but on the other hand I don't want to see him hijack the message boards for purposes of his own propaganda. Thank you.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 5:57 pm: | |
"...I believe I have located Lewis Levy, a relative of Joseph Levy's in the 1891 census. Lewis was a cigar-maker at lived at no. 8 Mitre Street in the 1861 census (it was in back of this house that Eddowes was killed in Mitre Square. In the 1891 census Lewis was living at no. 5 Sion Square, two doors away from Woolf Abrahams and his family. Lewis was the son of the fruit merchant, Ann Levy, who lived for many years at no. 29 Mitre Street in the 1840s - 1860s. Lewis was born in 1826. Searches I have conducted for similarly-named adult males of that age and occupation are nil, strongly suggesting that this is the same guy."
>>Please see my Question #31. Although an empirically-provable Levy/Kosminski connection is unnecessary for my logical case, I am avidly following Scott's excellent work in attempting to establish it. Consider if you will how much closer such a connection becomes over the years. There may come a day when Scott and I light up a couple of Lewis Levy's cigars for a little celebration.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
1. "...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."
>>If true premises support the conclusion, Mr. Norder, then true premises support the conclusion. That's how logic works. Get out your freshman logic book written by Irving Copi and review. Your repeated attempts to find darkly evil motiviations behind my work don't render the logic invalid. The main reason for people doubting the Lusk letter, graffitus and witness statements has been a lack of any holistic view of the case to account for them. This I provide. They are validated by the whole.
2. "Einstein wasn't a "proof schmoof" kind of guy, and no one who hopes to be taken seriously should be either."
>>You are mixing your metaphors again. Einstein gave proofs in the form of mathematical formulae, I give proofs in the form of logical oppositions and a holism. Einstein did not travel out to the sun to "prove" his theories on gravity. He didn't take a gravimitometer reading whilst sitting on a sunspot for the sake of empiricism. I need not offer empirical data to support every logical conclusion either (this is what I was being asked for when I wrote "proof, schmoof.") The excessive use of empiricism is what has damned Ripperology to the realms of the fraudulent for decades.
I can appreciate that a reasonable person would want to have further detailed discussion beyond the Summary, however. That part belongs to the Thesis. Nevertheless, the situation as it now stands gives no cause to dismiss the Summary out of hand.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
G. Longman.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
The evidence adduced at the Eddowes inquest makes it pretty clear that the Jewish witness was Joseph Lawende, who was able to furnish a description of the man he saw with a woman assumed to be Eddowes.
In his sworn statement Levy said he "noticed the man and woman" but did not look at them properly and "passed on without taking any further notice of them." He added that "from what I saw the man might have been three inches taller than the woman." He could not describe them, the spot was badly lighted and he did not take much notice of them.
If we are not to accept what witnesses said under oath then we might as well ignore all the evidence and make up our own as we go along (I think that some already do this).
One newspaper reporter felt that Levy was "obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest." This was probably because Levy did not like the press pestering him and, like many witnesses, was reluctant to have to appear in a public court. He had also probably been asked by the police not to discuss the matter with the press.
The conspiracy theorists have grabbed this opportunity to make something out of nothing. Levy was 'called on the inquest' and appeared two days later and gave his evidence.
The fact that Levy took 'no particular notice of them' is confirmed by Detective Inspector McWilliam of the City Police who stated that Lawende "was nearest to the man and woman and saw most of them" and this alone should be enough to deduce that the Jewish witness was indeed Lawende and not Levy.
The theorists who prefer to discard the official evidence in favour of what one disgruntled reporter (who could not get a story out of Levy) said in an article before Levy gave his inquest evidence, really are 'bending' things to fit their own ideas.
So, although we 'don't know who Anderson's witness was', the most reliable evidence available indicates that it was Joseph Lawende. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
"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."
>>They sure look like the symbols my tailors have used in making alterations for me over the years. However, my point is that there are logical oppositions available in the case evidence to make reasonable the proposition that the marks on Eddowes' face were a communication device intended for Levy, Lusk, the other two Jews with Levy, etc. Read the Summary. How does the question that the symbols are "official" tailoring symbols in every sense of the word impact this? I think not at all. Maybe the Ripper, as he drew these symbols on the face, was thinking partly in terms of tailoring, and partly in terms of eighteenth century Egyptian Coptic communion symbols. Maybe also Norwegian navy semaphores, or other symbols, or any combination of the above. What would it matter to my case? The basic notion that he is communicating "You saw me, I'm guilty, Now it's our secret," as I say in the Summary. is the same. Those who are bashing me on the symbols aren't thinking clearly concerning how my logic makes use of them.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
1. "Thanks for bringing the placard to my attention, but those efforts were largely unsuccessful--they only managed about fifty pounds by 30 September, right? In my opinion, there's no reason for anyone to have placed much confidence in Lusk's ability to secure a reward, particularly before 30 September. The Committee just never raised much money."
>>JtR is actively creating George Lusk, Famous Reward Proselityzer in his planning for the double event. JtR doesn't get interested in Lusk because Lusk is already famous before the double event. JtR gets interested in Lusk because Lusk has potential for fame before the double event. That is one of the reasons why the double event is designed to cause an apoplectic social disturbance--that supposedly drastically increases Lusk public and social credibility as a bleeding heart reward seeker, gets him huge public support, and this, JtR thinks, will in turn score him (JtR) the reward. The murderer generates his own confidence--pathologically much too much of it--based on what he thinks HE can do, not on Lusk's prior record.
2. "It's worth noting that if the kidney was a message/threat to Lusk to encourage him to greater activity, it doesn't seem to have have communicated itself well. As far as I know, Lusk adopts a low profile after getting it. I've seen a reference (I think it's a brief sentence in the Telegraph or Star) that the V.C. was soliciting the public again for funds the end of October. By the time Mary Kelly is found, there are references that the Committee had disbanded."
>>You are correct, Lusk never figured out what the message meant. In fact, no one did, prior to my work.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 9:54 pm: | |
"The theorist, who claims to have worked on his "solution" for years and to have documented everything, can't cite his source that the apron was cut in half. He thinks Paul Begg said that somewhere, maybe on the old boards."
>>I remember that Begg did discuss in some detail the puzzling situation of why the Ripper didn't simply cut through the stays of the apron if he wanted to get a piece to take with him. It seemed pretty compelling to me. I believe it must have been on the old message boards system--I don't own that CD but will obtain it. Sugden discusses the matter in part on page 186. He says what was found at the Wentworth building was "about one half" of the apron, and that it "had been severed by a clean cut," basically confirming what I wrote in the Summary. I'll make a note to cite Begg in the Thesis. Please explain why it wasn't just nicked off, or hacked through at the stay, if you want to sharply criticize me on this point, as you do. Why did the murderer take extra time and effort under those conditions to cut it the way he did? It is a legitimate point to raise in any event.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:17 pm: | |
1. "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."
>>I have studied thoroughly works by the preeminent psychiatrists in the field of psychopathy. Please don't patronize me with your "pop psych" baloney.
2. "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."
>>You offer nothing specific, taken from the Summary, to back up these very general charges against me. This would normally be considered simple low-class, loutish insulting on your part. Please be more specific. I think I have a number of breakthrough new ideas in my work, in contradistinction to what you say above. Right here, right now, analyze for us my interpretation of the essential matters "Juwes," of "Lipski!," of the Lusk letter, of the graffitus, the account of Berner Street, the identification, the cessation, the epistemological center, the list goes on and on. These aren't entirely new? See what I mean? What you say is pure cr*p, in plain English. Grow up.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
At the time of the Eddowes Inquest and shortly afterwards, the police believed that of the three men, Lawende had the best view of the man with the woman, even though Lawende only glanced at the man, “I doubt whether I should know him again.” Yet Anderson said that the witness had a “good view of the murderer.” Anderson would have been well-aware of Lawende’s fleeting sighting of the man and woman near Mitre Square in 1888, and Lawende almost certainly would not have agreed to try and identify a suspect under such circumstances. Such an identification would have been worthless anyway. Yet Anderson was convinced that the “murderer” had been identified. The question is, did the police continue to believe that Lawende was the “best” witness for several years after the murders? Or did Levy have the better view of the suspect, possibly instantly recognizing the man? “Indeed, it still strikes me as a coincidence almost too remarkable to be a coincidence that Levy, a witness, knew a Kosminski, the name of a primary suspect.” – Paul Begg from the Casebook Message Boards, Kosminski, Aaron, January 2, 1999.
If Lawende was the witness and he had already (?) positively identified Kosminski as the Ripper, why was he then called in to attempt to identify Sadler, one week after Kosminski was locked in the asylum? Or even attempt to identify Grainger several years later? Surely this would devalue his earlier identification. Recall, we only have one single newspaper source, the Daily Telegraph February 18, 1891, reporting that one of the Duke Street witnesses had failed to identify Sadler. The journalist prefaces that statement by remarking: “Further it is certain that the police are not neglecting the facts which have come to light in connection with the previous murders.” So there are no official police reports that have been found on the Sadler identification.
It seems clear that the attempt to use Lawende (if it was Lawende) to identify Sadler (or if police even attempted to identify Sadler) strongly suggests that Lawende wasn’t the eye-witness who had only just positively identified Anderson’s suspect. Knowing that this witness was troublesome (in refusing to give further evidence), would the police have bothered using him again with Sadler or Grainger? This suggests to me that it was another witness who identified Kosminski.
Levy did not disappear from the trade directories in 1892. He ran a restaurant with Charles Lazarus at 8 Great Alie Street in 1892. The two men then formed a loan office at 51 Mansell Street, which they ran until 1894, after which Levy moved to Brighten and Lazarus retired to 84 Colvestone Crescent.
Major Henry Smith’s witness was a “hybrid German”, which better fits the Dutch Jew, Joseph Levy, than it does Lawende, a Polish Jew or the Hungarian Jew, Schwartz.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2421
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
But if Levy knew the suspect, why does Anderson write of the witness learning that the suspect was a fellow-Jew?
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
"One newspaper reporter felt that Levy was "obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest." This was probably because Levy did not like the press pestering him and, like many witnesses, was reluctant to have to appear in a public court. He had also probably been asked by the police not to discuss the matter with the press. "
Well said and an excellent point by G. Longman.
The context of this article is also important. It was published, I believe, in the Evening News on October 6th. (I'm going from memory but I'm pretty sure this is right). This was at the same time that the Met was going through its little fiasco with Mathew Packer who kept changing his testimony everytime he mingled with the press. Significantly, it was also the Evening News that haranged the Met about Mathew Packer on October 4th, particularly about why he hadn't been called at the Stride inquest. The City Police no doubt didn't wish to make the same mistake as the Met and cautioned their witnesses. And Levy was probably just a good citizen. He told the reporter from the Evening News to sod off since he hadn't yet even appeared at the Inquest (as I would have done, too). Clearly when the time comes Levy does do his civic duty, shows up for the inquest as scheduled, and gives testimony. There's no peep out of Swanson in his November report about Levy not being straight forward, and thus there is no evidence whatsoever that Levy was anything other than a good citizen who gave an honest testimony. RP |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Scott--"Knowing that this witness was troublesome (in refusing to give further evidence), would the police have bothered using him again with Sadler or Grainger?"
Agree with the logic---but was the witness really troublesome, or was it only Anderson's perception? Heck, even in Mr. Radka's theory the witness 'knowing he was identified' only boils down to Kosminski's pupils getting bigger. As no doubt many here recall, both Stewart Evans and Jeff Bloomfield have recorded some instances of Sir Robert Anderson believing he had the uncanny knack of looking into the heart of things.
Thanks for the update on Levy's post 1892 activities. This evidently came to light since the publication of the A-Z, which is where I got my information.
I must say that Mr. Linford asks an interesting question... |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
David, I'm not bashing you about the tailoring marks, nor am I hung up about what's "official" or not. I'm only trying to find out what you're basing your idea on. You've now answered my question in a post directed to someone else:
They sure look like the symbols my tailors have used in making alterations for me over the years.
That's what I was looking for, thanks.
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1761
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Mr Andersson have promised himself not to pur his "propaganda" anymore on this thread, as Radka puts, but since he addressed me personally, Mr Andersson have no other choice than to do Radka the honor of a final retort from my part.
"Mr. Andersson is becoming tedious. As often as he is disproven, he simply rewords the same position on his next post. He has many times posted the same things, such as Jack was a lust murderer, he couldn't have had detailed rational goals, academics don't know what they are doing and the police do, etc. I would like the new Editors to take a look at this please, and see what they can do about it. At some point I'm going to have to just stop responding to Mr. Andersson due to constraints on my time--but on the other hand I don't want to see him hijack the message boards for purposes of his own propaganda. Thank you."
Yes it is indeed getting tedious and it is because you are coming back to psychopaths over and over and over again without addressing the points I am trying to make. You force me to be repetitious, it's not that I enjoy enjoy it - believe me, I would prefer it if I didn't have to. But don't worry, I am through with banging my arguments against a rhetorical brick wall as far as those particular points are concerned. If I bang the word "lust murderer in you head repeatedly, is because you always seem to elude that point, forcing me to repeat it. However, point taken, if you haven't got it by now, you never will anyway. I don't force you to respond and to waste your valuable time.
"You are bastardizing my position on the case, so as to better be able to shoot me down in your bastardized form."
No, I am using your own explanations (although it's not a direct quote) and simply referring to your own ideas. So what are you saying now? That they are not valid anymore?
"Those who are bashing me on the symbols aren't thinking clearly concerning how my logic makes use of them."
You're right, that's probably it. I wonder why.
Still, what you can't escape from, is that if you suggest a possible similarity with the marks and symbols originating from, let's say, tailoring, you must be able to show it and present sufficient examples to illustrate your claim. Once again, with your approach one can claim absolutely anything.
Furthermore, your reasoning here is based on the fact that the marks were some sort of communication. But what if they weren't? What is your explanation B? If you could present such examples I referred to, you may have had the opportunity to actually point at interesting evidence. Now it's just leading nowhere besides any other speculative theories.
"What is wrong with subjective interpretations? Basically I'm a bright fellow, and I'm employing my central nervous system to interpret texts, writing up the results, and putting them in front of the public so they can decide what they think of it. What is essentially dishonorable, unclean, inadequate, or fallacious about that?"
I don't doubt for a moment that you're a bright fellow. But subjective interpretation is not OK if that is all there is. That is why Richard has being critizised for the 39 theory and the grave spitting incident, as well as Cornwell being hacked on for her questionable "links" to JtR from Sickert's paintings. Your very crude distortions of the facts and - I must admit - quite innovative elaborations are no different.
If you want to avoid this criticism, all you have to do is to do what any academic institution would force you to do, namely to study different kinds of sources and put them against each other as you discuss them. This is simple source criticism on its most basic level. You only refer to Cleckley in your summary as your main source. How credible is that?
Finally, if you seriously think that the philosophical and psychological academic world is better on solving crimes than the police on the field or the criminologists, you really need to get out of your chamber. Your textbooks are strangling you, Radka - you just don't know it yet.
Now, my work and "tedious, repetitious propaganda" here is done.
You have obviously put in a lot of effort in your dissertation project, Radka, and I respect and congratulate you for it. But it's far from convincing and it's more speculation than true interpretation of the facts.
Mr Andersson bids goodnight and leaves this thread to its destiny.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 05, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:42 pm: | |
But if Levy knew the suspect, why does Anderson write of the witness learning that the suspect was a fellow-Jew?
"Good question. I don't have an answer, only speculation. Here's what I said in one of my essays on this site:
There were two versions by Anderson of the suspect/witness confrontation.
1) " …when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, he declined to swear to him", and
2) "..the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him, but he refused to give evidence against him".
These two statements are curious. It had been surmised that Anderson made certain changes to soften the tone of his accusations between his serialized Blackwood's Memoirs in 1910 and the book edition of the Memoirs in the same year, which contain these two statements, respectively. It would be wrong to attempt to analyze too closely these statements; they are after all only brief generalizations of the identification based on memory alone."
I should have specified that Anderson's use of certain words, as opposed to general statements, may reflect his attempt at damage control (averting Jewish criticism). In other words, it's better to infer that the witness knew the suspect was a Jew before being told so in the second statement, in contrast to his first statement, where after being told the suspect is a Jew, the witness then refuses to cooperate. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 623
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi David
I see you have responded to my question concerning the problems presented by Cleckley's failure to study murderers, let alone sexual serial lust killers. It seems you are now resorting to insults when you cannot answer a valid question. I note that many of your answers to others are merely insults dealing with our collective failure to 'understand' your sources. You state, "This is a serious incompetence (sic) with respect to understanding and maintaining distinctions" Do you think you are conversing with idiots? Do you think people cannot see through you when you resort to circuitous and incoherent answers such as the above.
In 1941 Cleckley may have been spouting forth pearls of infinite wisdom with regard to the psychopathic condition. Nevertheless, I wonder if I am the only one who finds that 63 year old texts present a myriad of problems when used to buttress an argument which should deal with our present knowledge of the aforementioned type of killer.
I was obviously under the misapprehension that you were above such tactics as you have displayed in certain of your 'responses'.
All The Best
Gary |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 380
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
Hi David,
"Right here, right now, analyze for us my interpretation of the essential matters "Juwes," of "Lipski!," of the Lusk letter, of the graffitus, the account of Berner Street, the identification, the cessation, the epistemological center, the list goes on and on. "
Ok, done right here right now:
1: Juwes - At the time the killer is writing the message, he does not know if he's been a) recognised by Levy or if b) Levy mentions to his friends that he knows this guy. So, he decides to leave a message to warn them not to identify him by threating them with the responsibility of stirring up anti-Jewish sentiment resulting in their families being blamed by the local, and possibly the entire European, Jewish community. However, if Levy did not recognise him, or if Levy did not mention this to his friends, the message must not be recognisable as a threat.
This is basically from your summary. Even before we get to your interpretatin of the word Juwes, it's already full of logical holes. If the message is such that it is not recognisable as a threat, then it's not recognisable as a threat regardless of whether a or b are true. Your "psychopathic killer" has to think his "abilities" are such that he can send a message that is an understandable threat if Levy identified him and if Levy also told his friends that he identified him, while simultaneously they won't understand the threat if either Levy did not identify him or if Levy did not tell his friends. The ability to understand a written message, however, is unconnected to the act of identifying a person. So you are once again describing someone with delusional thinking patterns. You're "epistemological center", or the centre of knowledge, or the fundamental premise of your whole theory, is that the killer is a psychopath. You have repeatedly pointed out that a psychopath, by your definition, is not delusional. Therefore, because your interpretation of what the killer is thinking at the time of the writing requires a delusional thinking pattern, your theory contradicts itself at this point. Not surprising. Your insistance that a psychopath believes he can do this is a demonstration that you do not understand the difference between "over confidence" and "delusional" thinking.
You claim Juwe is a contraction of the German "Jugendwerk", a term for a sunday school student (child). I have never heard of this, and unless you can demonstrate that this is a valid contraction (show me where it's used as such), I'm going to go with the more probable notion that this is like your tailoring marks. You're really saying that Juwe was used by the killer as their own particular made up contraction for the german word. The latter demonstrates how you are not fitting the theory to the facts, but rather you are making up facts to fit your story. The former, however, would be an interesting find because as far as I know, nobody has found the word Juwe in any of the European languages (the closest being the French Juive, meaning Jew).
Regardless, if we continue with the idea that Juwe is a contraction (real or imaginary doesn't matter anymore - let's just accept your idea that it is one) meaning "sunday school student", then basically the idea is that by writing, in translation, the statement "The sunday school children are not the men who will be blamed for nothing", the killer believes this message will be clearly understood by 3 adult Jewish men as a threat against their well being if they go to the police and identify the man they saw with Eddowes. Again, a clear example of a delusional thinker, which again contradicts your central premise of a non-delusional thinking killer. So again, your theory is contradicting itself.
Lipski: I have no problem with your interpretation of Lipski when used by gentiles. Here, you're basically repeating what has been said before, and generally is accepted. You've offered, without proof of course, that it was also used by Jews. Without proof, though, it's just something you've made up, again, twisting facts to fit the theory is a no-no David. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the philosophy of science.
the Lusk letter: if a theory gives a critical role to any of the letters the theory is on very shaky legs. However, the Lusk letter is probably the safest if you want to take a gamble. You must acknowledge that because you are building on the "assumption the letter is genuine", then you cannot say you have the only possible solution - meaning you cannot support the claim that you have solved the case to a singular solution.
Anyway, your idea that the letter was sent to Lusk to ensure Lusk increased his campaign for a reward and to increase it's amount. Not surprisingly, you've concluded this because of how clearly the letter makes no mention of the reward. Again, you attribute a meaning to a message that is not actually contained and/or hinted at in the message. Another way of saying, once again you are making stuff up in order to fit the evidence to your theory rather than fit your theory to the evidence. A most amusing demonstration of this is your claim that when the letter writer "says" (without the orginal spelling errors) : "...I may send you the bloody knife that took it out if you only wait a while longer..." is supposed to be interpreted by Lusk as : "If you don't get off your behind and back to your campaign of demanding a Home Office reward forthwith, I may murder and mutilate you just like the women". Let's see, an offer to send him the knife isn't meant to be seen as "look, I sent you the kidney though the post, so I may send you my knife through the post too" but rather as a threat to kill and mutilate if he doesn't do what? Well, obviously, that's the part that can't be said right out, but Lusk will know what the killer wants - which is to get back to seeking a reward. Again, the only way the killer could believe Lusk would understand his hidden meanings is if the killer were delusional, and again, you contradict your central premise of a non-delusional killer. So again, you demonstrate you do not understand the psychology texts you are reading.
And, you seem to ignor the fact that there is the report of the tall, Irish speaking, non-Jewish, male who asked for Lusk's address at the store. He was given an incomplete address, and this was how the Lusk parcel was delivered. Also, Lusk had complained that an Irish man was recently stalking around his house. So, although certainly not definitive, there is far more evidence to suggest this Irish fellow sent the kidney. Whether or not he's also the killer is a different matter. But, since you accept the letter as from the killer then the Irish man is the best suspect we have for sending it. This would entirely disprove your threory because it makes the killer a gentile. If the letter is not genuine, it disproves your theory because the letter is central to your theory. And, if the Irish man did not send the kidney, your theory disproves itself because the interpretation of the "intended message" requires a delusional killer and you've defined your killer as non-delusional.
Berner Street: The whole idea that the killer hires Stride, then attacks her, then apologises, etc, is just so far fetched and based upon so many assumptions I just don't know where to start. The only "evidence" you offer has to do with Schwartz only noticing the man when he turned the corner. You base this upon the transcripts we have in the newspapers, which are the transcripts of a translater, who translated what Schwartz said in response to translated questions posed to him. So let's see, Schwartz speaks, it gets translated (source 1 for signal degradation; meaning the exact wording of the translation could have implications not originally intended), then the reporter makes his notes (source 2 for signal degradation), then the reporter writes up his full story from his notes (source 3), then the editor makes corrections to the story (source 4). And, you base an entirely complicated scheme upon the particular wording of this information? If the wording is at all incorrect, and I've easily come up with 4 possible times where the exact wording could get flawed with respect to what Schwartz intended, your complicated scenerio all falls apart. You've got nothing to justify the whole notion that JtR hired Stride, etc. Again, you're making up stuff that is far too complicated to be supported by the evidence. You're well in to the ranks of Knights and Cornwell's here.
the Identification: I believe others have dealt with the identification well enough. There is no reason to suspect that Levy was Andersons witness. Again, the evidence contradicts your theory unless you make something up to fix it. Anyone who has studied philosophy, and understood it, knows that to "fix" a theory this way is logically unsound and logically unjustified; meaning it's an error of logic. Since you're posts clearly indicate you disagree with me on this point, you again demonstrate you do not understand the principles of the philosophy of science, specifically in the areas of what is known as "confermation theory" (A branch of philosophy that deals with how we test and build theories from evidence. It's applicable to all forms of research, not just that which is based upon the "scientific method").
The cessation: You suggest that Levey confronts the killer after Mary's death. Levey demonstrates that he has the leverage in the situation and the killer agrees to stop. This action, this acceptance of subservience to the authority of Levey is completely polar opposite to the fundamental core of your proposed psychopath. The whole killing spree was supposed to have started from a conceptually identical situation. The killer initially embarks upon the killings to reclaim his authority when he had to submit to this authority. And now you want to claim that his chosen way to reassert himself he is going to give up in an identicle situation to someone else. Given how you keep claiming this killer acts upon his belief in his own abilities, (with the messages, etc), if we give him all this confidence, when his reclaimed authority is threatened by Levey, then Levey should be dead. In fact, Levey should have been killed simply because of the possibility he may have recognised the killer. Everything you claim about your killer is completely undermined by the claim that the killer simply submits to Levey's leverage. And so once again, your theory is simply contradicting itself. At almost everyone point, almost every action, almost every "intention" that you attribute to your killer, contradicts your fundamental premise, or contradicts the character you build up at one point and becomes a different character to get your theory through the next hurdle. The conclusion is that your theory is self contradicting, and therefore it is false.
The epistomological centre: I've addressed this throughout this post as the best way to deal with the fundamental premise (in this case) is to show that the subsequent statements do not follow from the initial premise.
the list goes on and on: Well, actually it does not. Your list ended with this.
- Jeff
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
