|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 785
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:49 pm: |       |
Some posts are coming across as a bit petty and nit picking.Whatever else David"s summary was exciting and quite dazzling in its originality.
I think its important not to get too weighed down with pedestrian stuff about newspaper reports about so and so and who said what in 1951 etc.
and how many books on mental illness David should have read to qualify him to speak on the subject.
Why not be a bit generous minded over all this---
Natalie |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 7:24 pm: | |
Natalie---What you call 'petty' I call detail. Those who approach this from a background in psychology will always want to keep things general; those whose background is in history will always be concerned precisely with what you call pedestrian--the statements McWilliam wrote at the City in 1888 or what Swanson scribbled in 1911 or what was going on with the Evening News when they reported that Levy was hiding something. These details are the life-blood of the case. David would be naive to think his theory wouldn't stand or fall based on 'pedestrian' stuff' or what he sometimes seems to believe are nearly empirical afterthoughts. To state otherwise is a bit like saying 'don't let facts stand in the way of a good story.' Oh, and by the way--David isn't naive. Cheers, RP |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 787
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 7:52 pm: | |
No RJ thats not what I meant.I pay attention to detail myself and am quite painstaking over it most of the time.And I agree its the lifeblood of the case as I am often meaning when I thank Chris or others for that detail.
But the case isnt only detail and David has provided a summary of an entire solution with a clear central character riding a merrygoround
where he hopes to get everyone on board.But instead of us getting to grips with this scenario as a complete homogenous entity everybody seems to me to be going off on a number of different tangents concerning the minutiae of the case.
Its like that saying about the whole being the sum of the parts but the sum of the parts may not be the whole if you see what I mean.[the details here being the parts]
Best Wishes
Natalie |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 589
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 7:59 pm: | |
Natalie,
What you just said basically is that we should pay more attention to the overall idea than the several logistical inconsistencies presented by the "homogenous entity". Once people start doing that, why not just swallow every illogical whackadoo conspiracy out there, ignoring all those illogical little details. Because after all, it's the idea that's important, right?
 |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 788
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 8:18 pm: | |
Well ...again not "quite" what I intended to mean!
But yes address the whole idea and deal with the parts that are not convincing within that context
and that can be as detailed as need be.If then it still doesnt make sense or ring true then there may be something wrong with the inner mechanics[for want of a better term!---its past my bedtime here 1.15 must go to bed.Am not making myself as clear as I"d like.
Hpoe your cold has cleared!
Take Care
Natalie
Best Natalie |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 590
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Natalie,
The whole idea is only as good as the parts that make it up. If those parts aren't good, the whole isn't good. What you call getting bogged down in nitpicking, is dealing with the specifics of David's theory....many of which don't support that theory as a whole.
Ally
P.S...cold hasn't cleared yet but thanks for asking. Hopefully a few more days and all will be good.
(Message edited by ally on May 05, 2004)
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 381
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 8:57 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
The thing is that David has been critical of people for years if they present an idea that he feels does not fit the data. That's not a problem, in general, that's what we all try and point out to each other. We present an idea, and if someone notes some evidence that does not quite fit with our explanation, we have to have a 2nd think about it. How we deal with that inconsistancy will boil down to a few basic techniques. First, modify some aspect of the theory such that this evidence becomes encorporated without the entire theory falling to pieces. In otherwords, the theory changes in it's specifics but the overall gist is maintained. This includes things like suggesting that the "events" could follow one of two paths, but that they then converge back to a common point as well as suggesting a new singular route to bridge some time frame.
If nothing like this is possible because the evidence debunks some central pillar of the theory, one might be able to demonstrate that the conflicting evidence is not actually related to the case. And therefor the theory requires no modification. To discard this way, however, requires careful consideration and the arguments for noninclusion of the evidence must be reasonable, sound, and compelling. If the evidence cannot be conclusively proven to be unrelated to the case, then the theory must always be considered "unproven" because it hinges upon the assumption that this evidence is not related to the case. If that premise is false, the theory is false because it is founded upon a false premise. It doesn't mean the theory is one we should not consider, or even that it is a bad theory. It's just should not be touted as "final solution".
David has been critical of others, and he has often resorted to uncalled for insults when doing so. Then, after years of this, he presents a story that is so contrived and unrelated to the evidence that's it is hard to believe this is the theory he's been claiming is such an improvement. He's being critiqued by being held up to his past stated criterions. And he's being critiqued with language that his past posts suggests he feels is the appropriate way to make comments (actually, the comments directed to David are exceptionally tame compared to some of the diatribes that David has launched in the past).
I agree that David has presented a very entertaining story. One that would make a wonderful movie script even. But then, "From Hell" is an interesting yarn as well and if it were not based upon something that interests me in terms of what "really happened", I'm sure I would have enjoyed it more because I wouldn't be annoyed by the innaccuracies contained.
But just because David's theory is highly imaginative and entertaining as a story does not mean it is a sound interpretation of the historical events. He has insulted and criticised nearly everyone who have made suggestions in the past, claiming they fit the evidence to their theory. He has claimed this is the sin of "traditional Ripperology" and it's why the case has not been solved in the past. He accuses anyone who dares to disagree with him as being egotistical, or intellectually void, or whatever, in order to close his post with "I won't waste my time in responding anymore". This is the biggest joke, because the use of anymore implies that he actually responded to the content of the post in the first place. So, if people are being a bit harsh in how they address David it's because this is how David has treated everyone else in the past. As ye sow, so shall ye reap, as the saying goes.
- Jeff |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 9:19 pm: | |
Well, if nothing else I'm glad I am following the thread to see the discussion about the mysterious identification by the Jewish witness.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 233
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 9:54 pm: | |
David,
You are going to complain to the editors about Glenn? Since you seem singularly humorless, am I right that it was not said in jest? You, who have been a crude, insolent, bullying boor on the boards for years, threaten to complain about Glenn? While often disputatious, he is one of the more courteous posters, usually has informative insights and also is one who will admit to an error graciously.
If there is anyone who has abused the privlege of posting on countless occasions it has been you.
My advice would be to quit while ahead, because every additional comment you make only reveals much more about you than your deductions -- and it is not a flattering portrait that is emerging.
A.P. had the best line -- your 15 minutes are up.
Don. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 789
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 3:34 am: | |
Ally,OK.its morning now and I looked in before work.I do accept that the case has to be solved to complete satisfaction before anyone can claim to be the one with THE solution for all the reasons stated by yourself and Jeff above [for example].
You are quite right.The parts do need to fit exactly.
Look after yourself
Natalie
Jeff,thanks for the reply which I think sounds Fair.
I admit that I have not been on the boards long enough to know of past frustrations.
As far as I am concerned David is fine just as he is.
Perhaps people have taken offence.People don"t have to take offence though.The choice is theirs.
With regards to the summary and the various criticisms etc I do see the need to be convinced
Jeff as I admit to Ally above.
Perhaps it is indeed the tone of the criticism more than the "detail" that bothers me.
But thanks Jeff for taking time out to reply so fully.
Best Natalie
|
G. Longman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
I am afraid that for Mr. Nelson's theorising to work he requires much 'bending' of Anderson's words, and the facts for that matter. The police evidence adduced at the Eddowes inquest clearly shows that Lawende was the only near-decent witness of the three, and the only one able to supply a physical description of the suspect and his face.
Mr. Linford, of course, makes an excellent point in saying that Anderson claimed that "when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, he declined to swear to him". Given Mr. Radka's scenario he would have already known that the suspect was a Jew.
It is obvious that both Mr. Radka and Mr. Nelson rely heavily on subjective interpretations made of the whole Polish Jew theory by certain authors in the past. They would have us believe that only Anderson and Swanson knew of the identification while other senior Metropolitan police officers, such as Macnaghten, did not. Such an idea is untenable.
Given the amount of other people who would necessarily be involved in, and aware of, any identification there is no way it could be kept secret. The whole scenario smacks of a novel.
Despite Mr. Nelson's protestations about Lawende having 'only glanced at the man', he DID give a description and the evidence clearly shows that Levy was unable to give one. No known witness is recorded as having had "good view of the murderer" and, indeed, how could anyone merely seen with a victim, before the murder was committed, be the murderer anyway? He would have to be actually seen murdering the woman to be the actual killer. No, the more you read of Anderson, the more cause you have to doubt his word. The fact that Lawende was used in an attempted identification of Sadler as Jack the Ripper a week after Aaron Kosminski had been locked up (that's assuming that Aaron was the 'Kosminski' referred to by Swanson) shows that Lawende was indeed the police witness. Also the mere fact that the police clearly believed that Sadler could be the Ripper also militates against the Kosminski theory.
Mr. Nelson says, "Or did Levy have the better view of the suspect, possibly instantly recognising the man?" This sort of rhetorical question is a favourite ploy of the Kosminski-based theorists and simply flies against the facts revealed at the Eddowes inquest. Indeed, to believe it you have to accept that the official police reports on the Jews' sighting are wrong AND that Levy lied at the inquest. Mr. Nelson then quotes Paul Begg who found it too much of a coincidence that Levy knew "a Kosminski". Well, Kosminski was not that uncommon a name and Martin Kosminski was totally unrelated to Aaron. Martin Kosminski was a prominent businessman and would have been known to literally hundreds of his fellow Jews. Not so Aaron.
Mr. Nelson's theorising is riddled with 'ifs' and rhetorical questions and is sadly lacking any sort of fact to support it. The idea of 'another witness' is actually not indicated at all by the surviving police reports. What is actually in doubt is that there was any such attempted identification, as described by Anderson, at all. A witness in a murder case would not be allowed to "refuse to swear", he would simply be subpoenaed.
The Polish Jew theory is just that, another theory. It is the shaky peg on which Mr. Radka hangs his claimed solution to the case. Mr. Radka's theory is just another variation of an old theme. Put your cigars on ice Mr. Radka. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Friends,
My work is taking up an increasing amount of my attention at this time. I will be able to respond at a slower rate through the weekend. Additionally I believe I am about to be away from my PC for a whole week possibly beginning Monday, for a purpose understood by Mr. Ryder, although I'm not sure of the schedule yet at the moment. I will address the backup of unanswered posts as soon as I can.
David
(Message edited by admin on May 06, 2004) |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
After several years of intense study of census returns, directories, birth, marriage and death records, I can assure you, G. Longman, that Kosminski was an uncommon name at the time. In the 1891 census there were exactly one dozen adult males surnamed "Kosminski" in all of London. That's it, twelve. So make of that what you will. When I write posts or articles I never declare anything with certainty unless it is backed up by supporting facts, the rest is speculation, which I try to identify as such. I will have an upcoming article in this months Ripperologist that offers more speculation of a Levy/Kosminski/Hyams link, based on census and directory information-- but nothing concrete.
Martin Kosminski was totally unrelated to Aaron. Martin Kosminski was a prominent businessman and would have been known to literally hundreds of his fellow Jews.
I agree with the second part of your statement above. As to whether Martin was related to Aaron or not, we don't know.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
It's worth noting that the only surviving City of London Police record of any importance to the Whitechapel Murders states that McWilliam and Swanson met daily to exchange ideas & information. The two forces were in cooperation. As G. Longman notes, it also shows that the City didn't believe Levy could even furnish a description, let alone identify the man. So too with the Met. This is a big problem for Mr. Radka's speculations, or at least it would be if he bothered to inject a little Aristotle into his Platonism. Under what circumstance would the police have yarded Levy forward three years after the fact if their own records report that he was such an inadequate witness? This is the conundrum that the Levy-conspiracy theory doesn't answer. It flies in the face of the existing records, nor does it even 'fit' Anderson's own remarks. I'm unsure how this is to be explained by Mr. Radka. Is the implication that a family connection was discovered by the police? Hmm. Not only would Levy have been subpoenaed, as Mr. Longman notes, the police could then have demonstrated that Levy had committed both perjury and obstruction of justice and tossed him in the Clink. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 793
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Dan.I believe you misunderstand the term psychopath.Either that or you are using definitions that are not found in the Oxford Medical Dictionary;psychopath:a person who behaves in an anti social way and shows little or no guilt for anti social acts and little or no capacity for forming emotional relationships with others.Psychopaths tend to respond poorly to treatment but many mature with age.See also DYSSOCIAL
and under this comes:describing a personality disorder characterised by callous unconcern for others, irresponsibility,violence,disregard for social rules,and an incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.dated 2000.
There is no reference to this other term which means that if it is used in the medical profession either
-it meanssomething very technical and we would not need to use such a term in these discussions
-or it means someone with a different condition.
However it is not in the Oxford Medical dictionary for the year 2ooo but the trem psychopath is[as defined above].
Best Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 794
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Dan,my post hasnt come through but I"ll try again.The term psychopath is perfectly correct as used by David and as defined in the Oxford Medical Dictionary of the year 2000.The term you refer to isnt listed1
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 796
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 3:12 am: | |
Dan,Idon"t know why the above have been separated from your post on the term "psychopath" and the appropriateness of its use today here.No doubt you yourself will follow my responses but I assume the confusion is due to the installation of the new server.
Natalie |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 75
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
Natalie,
Looks like we are missing a few days of posts. Ah well, can't say Stephen didn't warn us.
I fully understand the term "psychopath." David's theory in many places deviates quite substantially from that concept. Your quote from the Oxford Medical Dictionary is accurate, for as short as it is, but note that it does not include all the bizarre lack of coherent communication ability, incredibly irrational behavior and so forth that are a cornerstone of David's theory.
Again, since the post I mentioned it in went missing, the modern term is called Antisocial Personality Disorder and is described in DSM IV, the standard up-to-date reference for diagnosing mental illness and defects.
Instead of repeating the ASPD criteria (since the posts may get restored in the meantime), here's a link:
Antisocial Personality Disorder
But, in all fairness, some professionals believe that "true" psychopaths go beyond ASPD criteria. Dr. Robert Hare, mentioned a few times in this thread, is a major proponent of that stance. Of course, even then, the criteria used do not fit with David's theory. David seems content to try to rationalize the most bizarre nonsensical behavior as psychopathy, even when it doesn't fit the concept at all.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 797
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
OK Dan ,thanks for the link which I will try to study tonight.
The point about psychopathic behaviour that really stands out for me ,and I have worked with people who have been thus diagnosed,is the astonishing confusion that can be created especially concerning bigamous behaviour, the stealing of identity,confidence trickery,joining with mercenary outfits[again often under false pretences and the indifference towards all this shown by a lighthearted shrug most often.
Another term used frequently to describe
psychopathic behaviour is "the trail of chaos".
The polite disarming psychopath will recklessly deceive one minute and minutes later throw all his[or her] cards in the air because he is bored with it all and assumes evryone will continue to take him at face value anyway.The phrase "oh what a tangled web we weave etc" could also be aptly applied here.
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2424
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 11:11 am: | |
Dan, one of the posts that got lost was mine, asking you whether you thought that Hitler was a psychopath. The point being that here was a man whose capacity for manipulative communication was exceptional (unlike, apparently, David's suspect).
Robert |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 243
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Greetings programs!!
A few days back, I had posted some questions to David Radka, to which I fully expected he would address at least _some_ of them. I even went so far as to say:
"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"
Now, a little while later David later went on to respond with:
"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.
Is it me, or are is he simply being difficult for the sake of being difficult? In the real world people can't sidestep big issues for long without serious repercussion's to themselves and their reputations. Why should the message boards and David be any different? The answer of course, is that they should not be. Just because you don't like the question or the answer it might illicit does not give you the right to avoid it and belittle the asker. You came forward, thus you put yourself under the microscope. If you didn't want people like me all over you like a fat kid on a cupcake, perhaps you should have kept your mouth shut.
Imagine some famous lines of inquiry if they had followed this methodology. I'll use my former president Bill Clinton as an example:
Questioner #1: Did you have sexual relations with that women?
Bill Clinton: Questioner #1 will from this point forward be ignored because he is asking questions that make no sense. He is a busybody who should mind his own business.
Questioner #2: But you are here to be questioned about your sexual relations with a women, his line of inquiry is very pertinent and deserves an answer. If you didn't want questions asked of your personal life, perhaps you shouldn't have run for a public office. Now answer the question.
Bill Clinton: I think Questioner #1 and #2 should learn how to read Dr. XYZ, PhD and inform themselves about the term "sexual relations", get a tummy tuck, and be forced to go through high school again. Oh, and their both ugly.
C'mon... That'd never go over in real life. Why allow it here?
David -
Thanks for proving my point. I think it's safe to say that you and I don't share the same point of view about your summary or most your conclusions. However to resort to name calling and Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo-ism®© is a little beneath you, don't you think? What's wrong with answering a few questions? Perhaps you are afraid of the answers?
Ah well, unlike you I don't starve for attention, recognition or wealth (all those things you told me you wanted a few months ago. I can post the logs if you've all the sudden developed amnesia). I'm just in it to spin a few cycles whilst I'm not doing anything else.
It's a shame really, you and I could have really gotten a great deal accomplished. Your loss, not mine.
crix0r
END OF LINE
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 244
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hmm.. because of the move, this thread now has two forks..
Which should we go with?
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 77
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 6:55 pm: | |
Forks? What forks?
Regarding Hitler, what I said in a now missing post was that I'd call him a psychopath personally, but that I'm not sure if he'd fit the clinical definition. A lot of what gets someone labeled with antisocial personality disorder / sociopathy / psychopathy is going against society, and that whole country was pretty off the deep end at the time. I don't know enough about Hitler's personal life and so forth to know how much was his doing and how much was him following public sentiment. Of course I still think he's evil, it's just the psychiatric condition that's in question.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
Based on clinical criteria, Hitler was unlikely to have been a psychopath, because his actions make sense to ordinary reasoning. Yes he precipitated the holocaust, but if one hates the Jewish people, it follows that one might want to annihilate them. Yes he attacked the Soviet Union, but if one thinks Germany needs a place in the sun it follows that one might want to take that territory. Yes he is responsible for the worst war in history, but if one feels enthusiastic about one's politics as he did, perhaps one might want to put theory into practice. Not that any of these things are good to do--they are morally reprehensible--but at least the goals actually sought do not contradict the decisions undertaken to seek them. What we do not find in Hitler, at least as far as I can see, are examples of obvious self-contradictions, such as taking 1,000 miles of territory and then finding no real need of it and giving it back. Or designing V-2 rockets to devastate London and then deciding they'd make cooler fireworks instead, and shooting them off nightly over Berlin. This is the kind of thing that psychopaths do, over and over again. Hitler seemed to pursue a self-destructive path, not a self-ruinous one.
I can understand on the other hand that the grind of being der Fuhrer could have contained some psychopathic impulses, if present. He'd have to at least try to make legitimate decisions, considering ends, means and purposes, just to stay in power. His inner circle wouldn't let him get too out of hand if that were the case. But I think it unlikely that he could keep the mask on year after year.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 8:54 pm: | |
This is post one of a three-post reply:
1. ““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.”
>>Seriously, do you think I’d drop a theory on the public that is “full of logical holes?” Don’t you think I’d fundamentally consider what I’m writing first? This point invites the public, the majority not knowing me personally, to assume with you that I’m a nitwit and treat my work accordingly. Now Mr. Hamm, I thought I had made it clear that it is precisely my point that a psychopath is personally defective in such a manner that he simplistically projects what he wants outward onto the world. This defective identity is the only identity of which he is capable. He doesn’t have a complex, interactive, self-and-other identity structure like you and I do. Instead, like the infant we all once were, he simply kicks his mother in the side when he wants something, and totally assumes he’ll get it. There isn’t anything more complex to the world beyond that, as far as his awareness of his own capabilities goes. Therefore, what kind of communications might a psychopath make? That’s right, hopelessly defective, pompous, one-sided ones, communications that may have no or almost no chance of success. Psychiatric files of psychopaths are loaded with examples of such pompous communications. Therefore our psychopath does indeed believe that his message is an understandable threat, when in fact it isn’t. And therefore the way we know that we are on the right track in solving the case at this point is that we can see that we are dealing with a psychopath, in that he uses FAILED communication techniques. Now, where have your “logical holes” gone? Hmmmm?
2. “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.
>>No delusions whatever are required for the murderer to sincerely believe his attempted communications will succeed. Let me give an example from Cleckley:
“(A psychopath abandoned his wife in favor of a younger divorcee’, whom he convinced of his undying love. He also told her falsely that his wife had died. Shortly thereafter, determining that he required a greater income,)...he came to her (the divorcee’) with what must have been one of the strangest, most surprising and most inappropriate proposals ever made by man to woman. He requested and persistently urged (the divorcee’) to write a letter to his wife and in it explain to her that (the psychopath’s) love for her (the wife) was strong and genuine and to implore her to accept and welcome him back without further delay. (His psychiatrist has)...inexpressible respect for this young man’s powers of persuasion and (has)...often marveled at his accomplishments in getting people, sometimes the most unlikely people, enlisted in working with him to bring about his various and sometimes incompatible or absurd aims...Though extremely shrewd in many ways, ...(he) seemed to show some peculiar limitation of awareness, some defect in sensibility, of a nature...(his psychiatrist) cannot describe or clearly imagine. This often led him into gross errors of judgment that even very stupid people would readily see and easily avoid.” (Hervey M. Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity,” pgs. 178-9, parentheses mine.)
Please note the above psychopath was thoroughly examined by psychiatrists and found 100% sane and free of delusions. First the psychopath tells his girlfriend that his wife is deceased, and then later, when it suits his plans, he asks her to write a letter to his wife. The fact that a massive logical contradiction applies that the girlfriend can easily detect is of so little consequence to the pathological projection, the psychopath’s awareness of it simply falls out the back of his head. As far as the psychopath is concerned, the girlfriend will certainly do what he wants her to do and write the letter to the dead/living wife, she (the girlfriend) simply won’t detect the inconsistency between death and life despite that it is directly apparent, because this is what he wants of her at the time. Next, look at what the psychopath is expecting his wife to become enthusiastic about. He wants his wife to take him back, so he figures if she (the wife) gets a real nice report card on him from his girlfriend, she (the wife) will surely want such a good husband back and accept him. This despite that he had previously abandoned his wife callously and without apology, causing her great distress, and despite that his wife would certainly view such a letter from the girlfriend as bizarre and presumptuously inapplicable to her (the wife’s) feelings. And finally, consider what he’s asking the girlfriend to do. He is asking her to write for him as his girlfriend, despite that the content of the letter makes very clear to her (the girlfriend) that he wishes to abandon her as his girlfriend. He simplistically expects her to write the letter despite the clear and enormous absurdity involved, because that is a part of the little man’s big plan, his egocentric projection outward onto the universe, of the moment. Note the repeated combination of real shrewdness and apparent delusiveness on the part of the psychopath concerning the efficacy of his communication. Like the Ripper, he totally expects the communication to succeed, despite that there is next to no chance that it will, despite that he ruins all his chances with both his wife and girlfriend in requesting it be made, and despite that he is non-delusive. The only rational explanation is that he is highly over-confident in his ability to get what he wants, a “gross error of judgment” as Cleckley says. Please re-think your way of distinguishing between delusion and over-confidence, Mr. Hamm.
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.
|
|
|
|
