|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 9:00 pm: |       |
This is post three of a three-post reply:
10. “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.”
>>The evidence is the evidence. No one other than Schwartz saw the action it’s true, and the translation could be wrong. But didn’t the murderer stand near the Imperial Club with his next victim less than an hour later? Didn’t he make marks on her face denoting witnessing five minutes after a witness remarked on the couple? Didn’t he send the package to Lusk, trying to get the reward? Wouldn’t witnesses at two separate crime scenes in one evening make the reward a certainty with no need for physical evidence? As I’ve said many times, if you try to solve this case from disjointed pieces working upward by worshipping empirical data as your god, you’ll never do it. It is truly unsolvable that way. If it were, it would have been satisfactorily solved long ago. Thus we have to rationally integrate the function—both top down and bottom up at the same time. The central idea of psychopathy has to be integrated from above to the empirical evidence from below. The way you write, you make it sound like it is maybe okay to “make up” something simple, but maybe not okay if it is “far too complicated.” But why can’t the unseen be as much or more complex as the seen? Are you afraid of being reasonable, and treating the evidence reasonably?
11. “You're well in to the ranks of Knights and Cornwell's here.”
>>This is a specious insult, uncalled for and unrelated to my solution of the case.
12. “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").”
>>What you say once again vainly attempts to confine my work to the realm of research. I have said time and again that I did not “build my theory from evidence,” instead I fully respect the evidence of the case in that I predicate it on my rational epistemological center. The A?R theory is the true form of the evidence of the case, in virtue of the center.
13. “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.”
>>Let’s quote Cleckley again, same as in my response #2 above:
“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.”
This typical aspect of psychopathic personality explains the cessation. When the psychopath is in Mitre Square, he makes the “gross error of judgment” that he’s got leverage over Levy, just as the psychopath in Cleckley’s example imagines he’s got absurdly-conceived leverage over his girlfriend and wife. The awareness that he’s exposing himself as JtR to Levy, thus giving Levy massive leverage over him should he elect to pay the price and use it, simply falls out the back of his head and he is unaware of it. As we have seen, what a psychopath believes about himself and his abilities is profoundly actuated by what he wants at the moment, and in Mitre Square the psychopath imagines himself as Levy’s master and him collecting a big reward for himself. Now after Miller’s Court Levy comes to the psychopath and tells him he’s got to stop killing or else Levy will find a way to put him on the gallows. This is totally news to the psychopath, a bolt from the blue, an unimagined development of the highest order, a tremendous revelation. It shouldn’t be that way for him, and it wouldn’t be that way for any normal person with a conscience, who knows how to look out for himself in terms of the consequences of his actions ahead of time. In this situation, the psychopath either has to take Levy seriously, or directly and immediately face arrest. So hey, he’s Levy’s best buddy, totally cooperative in every way right there on the spot. This scenario has been repeated thousands and thousands of times between psychopaths and their wives, husbands, psychiatrists, etc. It is nothing new.
14. “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”
>>I hope I’ve been able to show how the center works with the evidence. Hey Jeff, keep bringing your list “on and on.” I’ve enjoyed getting specific with you, and look forward to being able to do so again.
Mr. Hamm is seen as something of a Great White Hope by little nowhere men, sitting in their nowhere land, making all their nowhere plans for nobody. I’m glad for this, and ready to take on any further such “torpedoes.” Just make sure to spell my name right:
R-A-D-K-A.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 8:57 pm: | |
This is post two of a three-post reply:
3. “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.”
>>Honestly, Mr. Hamm, do you think I’d make up patently ridiculous lies and just drop them in front of the public? Don’t you think I’d have honest justification for saying what I do? Don’t you think I’d feel the pang of conscience if I were to be such a terrible liar? How horrible on my part is it to suggest that the tailoring symbols may have been in part adapted by the murderer? As long as we can see that what he carved are generally inspired by tailoring symbols, and effective when used in the tailoring trade, what is the real difference? How does the fact that tailors don’t have an official communication standard restrain the psychopath from believing in Mitre Square that his communication utilizing tailoring symbols will be successful, if he wants it to be? Now, I’d like you to please click on the below link:
http://www.mennoniten.de/index.php?id=133&type=98
This is one of many German web sites devoted to jugendwerk. Scroll down a little bit and notice at the right side of your screen the drawing of the Christian dove, with the cross shining on its breast, taking flight. This represents the young Christian learning how to commit his soul to Christ as the result of his jugendwerk. And right next to the dove, what do you see? The word Juwe, the contraction I discovered as an original, rational contribution to Ripperology, that’s what! Do you realize how many people numbly went right by this word in trying to solve the case over the years? Hundreds of thousands, that’s how many! And who found it, for the first time in history understood its meaning to Ripperology and made it known I might add free of charge, once and for all? David M. Radka, that’s who!
4. “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).”
>>David M. Radka! David M. Radka has found it!
5. “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.
>>Please see #2, Cleckley, above.
6. “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.”
>>I think you demonstrate a lack of understanding of ironical speech, Mr. H. If the Gentiles were using the ying, the Jews were using the yang. After all, they all lived in the same little space and were quite suspicious of one another, weren’t they? Wasn’t one-upsmanship a part of life there? And here again, I think our psychopath is using poor judgment, pushing communication and perhaps also irony beyond the rational. But as I’ve said before, that is what makes his speech intelligible to us as psychopathy. (PS, I’ve studied the philosophy of science extensively on the graduate level, and have presented a paper on my work to an international colloquium headed by Dr. Umberto Eco.)
7. 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.
>>As I’ve said before, the sense of the letter as genuine depends on the rational holism of my entire perspective on the case, and the role the letter plays in it. I absolutely, positively, DO NOT “build on the assumption the letter is genuine.” No such assumption is made by me, and none is necessary for my theory to be correct. And yes, you can come up with many other solutions to the case other than mine, but please make sure you have rational reason to think yours is more fully satisfactory before you bother us with them.
8. “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.”
>> Please see #2, Cleckley, above.
9. “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.”
>>Maybe you’re right about how we ought to be seeing these things, Mr. H. But if you are, then we are stuck with having determined that “the Irish man is the best suspect we have for sending it” based solely on some bits of disjointed empirical data, within a numbness on our part to a rational holism that is available to us in the larger case evidence. “We have” these disjoint data, but also “we have” rationalism. Which is better, more applicable to solving the case, which should come first? On your disjointed method, the tall Irishman can be interpreted in hundreds of ways: Thousands of people made their own investigations of the case at the time. George Lusk was a famous person at the time, and many people wanted to contact him to offer him support or money for the reward—perhaps the priest wanted to make a donation in the name of the Lord or ask him questions about his intentions for the purpose of his Sunday sermon. Information about this man comes to us second-hand. Many addresses are partially written. The Irishman could have ventured to Lusk’s residence first and thereby obtained the address. In short, there is no evidence to indicate this man is connected to the Whitechapel murderer in the affirmative sense of empiricism.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 78
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
Hi David,
"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."
There's nothing in the clinical criteria for determining if someone is a psychopath or not that involves self-contradictions of this sort. A psychopath is someone without a conscience, not someone without a functioning brain. You sound more like you are talking about psychosis than psychopathy.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 79
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
And since you reposted the mention of Juwes to refer to a Christian sunday school... to sum up a previous post of mine that disappeared:
1) Do you have any proof that the term "Juwe" existed back in 1888?
2) As a German word, "Juwes" would be completely incorrect as a plural.
3) Where's the logic in believing that a Jew would make a message for other Jews using a term for a Christian sunday school?
And, for another example of what I mentioned in the previous post:
"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."
There's nothing in the diagnostic criteria of psychopathy about failed communication techniques. In fact, a great many psychopaths are excellent communicators. They know just what to say in just the right way to get people to do what they want.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 249
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
I agree Dan, on many of your points.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" - Inigo Montoya
Perhaps the word psychosis is a bit more apt here than psychopath. Since David has not answered any of my questions (see one of my recent posts on this subject) I do not know how many fully functioning psychopath's he has dealt with.
I'm also not so sure why David feels so certain that he is the only person who has had the thought that JTR was a psychopath. By the more common definition, it doesn't take that many brain cells to determine that a guy who strangles, almost decapitates in some cases, mutilates what he thinks is post-mortem and removes organs a "psycho". Even by the more clinical definition of the word, it's not to much of a leap of logic to deduce that the killer just might fit that definition.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 362
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
Jason,
Amen!! I don't think David will ever answer you. He didn't exactly answer my question either and I had definitely complimented his work and the hard effort that he had put into it, I just didn't agree with him.
Mikey |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 3:04 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"
>>Please show us right here, right now these "existing records." You've claimed you have them, so show them. That should be a piece of cake for you.
Thank you.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
""..."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.""
>>There are certainly various ways to begin an examination of the Whitechapel murders in an attempt to solve them. Mr. Andersson wants us to confine ourselves to criminal concepts and criminal terms here, apparently because what JtR did was criminal. Since the concept of criminality contains adequate detail to cover all crimes, and sense JtR committed crimes, then he's covered in the concept, and criminality should be the primary term used to describe him. Since not all psychopaths are criminals, and since JtR was a criminal, then describing him as a psychopath is inadequate because it may leave out the attribute of his criminality, not all psychopaths being criminals. This is essentially what Mr. Andersson is saying.
In response to this I may note that psychopaths are in fact massively associated with criminality throughout all scientific literature on the subject. About half the residents of prisons in the U.S. are diagnosed psychopaths, a very high percentage when it is considered that only about 1% of the total population is psychopathic. The term "criminal psychopath" is often used in law enforcement contexts. The central nature of psychopaths is the tricking and taking advantage of others for personal gratification and gain, which is at the same time a keynote of all activities deemed criminal. Psychopaths in every case see themselves as personally entitled above all rules and restrictions that bind everyone else. No psychopath has a conscience.
Therefore Mr. Andersson, I do not find any sense in your saying that psychopathy is not a fit concept for the predication of understanding of JtR because not all psychopaths are criminals.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi all,
re "Juwe - Jugendwerk"
I just sent an eMail to them, asking for information about the existence of the Jugendwerk and especially the abbreviation "Juwe" in 1888.
Will post the answer as soon as I get it.
Christian
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 385
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Well, after having read your responses David, I find no reason to change any of my posts or my concerns. You're counter example of a psychopath making strange choices based upon over confidence is entirely inappropriate as a counter example.
See, your psychopath in Clerkly was clear in transmitting their message of what they wanted the other person to do. It was "what they were asking for" that was a bit strange, but the transmission of the request was clear.
You're suspect, however, is trying to send "hidden messages", basically as if they are trying to send psychic thoughts. The message is apparently unrelated to the meaning. These kinds of communications, the notion that the suspect thinks he can send "secret messages" to someone who has no reason to ever even see the message, is entirely different from clearly telling someone what to do (even the the requested act is self defeating). You describe a delusional thinker. Clerkly does not.
I realise these can be difficult concepts David. But, you seem to have the energy to look into them. Keep working at it though and good luck.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 386
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Oh yah, David,
Jugendwerk means "youth work", it's not necessarily Christian youth work. You just happened to find it on a web page related to Christianity. The word itself, and if Juwe is a normal contraction, does necessarily refer to "sunday school children", converting Jews to Christianity, or any of the other things you've assumed and presented as facts.
- Jeff |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 22
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Just for clarification, a list of psychopathic behaviors from the DSM IV:
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Need for stimulation, with a proneness to boredom
Pathological lying
Conning and manipulating behaviors
No sense of remorse or guilt
A very shallow emotional affect - they display emotions they don't really feel
A lack of empathy for others
They are parasitic - they live off of others
They are impulsive, and show poor control over their behaviors
They tend to be promiscuous
Their behavior problems start early in life
They cannot form long-term plans that are realistic
They are impulsive, and irresponsible
They do not accept responsibility for their actions - another caused it
Marital relationships are short, and many
They display juvenile delinquency
They violate probation often
Their criminality is diverse
Mags |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 387
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 8:16 pm: | |
Ooops,
That should read "does not necessarily refer to "Sunday school children"", etc.
- Jeff |
G. Longman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Mr. Radka's theory is not that original in its basics. It is developed from Chapter Fourteen 'Kosminski', of 'Jack the Ripper the Uncensored Facts' by Paul Begg.
In this chapter Mr Begg develops his theorising on the Polish Jew scenario and also describes the theory developed from the same basis by Mr Fido. It is clearly described by Mr Begg as 'theorising' and contains what Mr Begg himself describes as 'pure speculation'. This subjective speculation is then developed with the use of the usual rhetorical questions and 'ifs', 'must haves' and 'may bes'.
Mr Begg introduces the idea that there may have been more to Levy's sighting than was admitted at the time and that he may be Anderson's witness. All the planks of Mr Radka's and Mr Nelson's theorising are to be found in this book and thus we have a theory built upon a theory. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 7:21 pm: | |
"re "Juwe - Jugendwerk"
I just sent an eMail to them, asking for information about the existence of the Jugendwerk and especially the abbreviation "Juwe" in 1888.
Will post the answer as soon as I get it.
Christian"
>>I would think that a Mennonite youth organization is hardly the place to reliably find word derivations--you would perhaps need a concordance, old dictionaries, and similar reference works. You might want to consult a professor of German at a big university. I would not trust the answer you get from the Mennonites one way or the other--they in fact may not be able to even read English well enough to understand your question.
D. Radka |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
"Jugendwerk means "youth work", it's not necessarily Christian youth work. You just happened to find it on a web page related to Christianity. The word itself, and if Juwe is a normal contraction, does necessarily refer to "sunday school children", converting Jews to Christianity, or any of the other things you've assumed and presented as facts."
>>I presented these matters contexually, in terms of word usage. The Jews of Whitechapel had lost their place in eastern Europe because they refused to convert to Christianity, hence the Ripper's use of the term Juwe--this is the context to which I am referring. One use of the contraction Juwe certainly relates to young people in a Christian organization learning the Christian faith--proto Christians, as I termed it. These matters are quite clear in the Summary.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
(Message edited by admin on May 11, 2004) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Just off the top of my head, all the following categories cited by Ms Giordano apply to the graffitus and facial messages:
a. Grandiose sense of self-worth
He is supremely confident that Levy and the other two men will get his message.
b. Conning and manipulating behaviors
He is trying to con and manipulate them into thinking that if they give him to the police, the Jewish community will make them pay a high price.
c. They are parasitic - they live off of others
He is trying to attach himself like a leech to Schwartz and Levy, to get them to turn Aaron in, after which he'll suck them dry of the reward money.
d. They cannot form long-term plans that are realistic
He actually thinks his plans will work. However, in the long term, the plan is so unrealistic that no one can even figure out what he wants them to do.
e. A lack of empathy for others
He cannot imagine himself standing in Levy's shoes concerning the graffitus and facial messages. If he could, he'd realize that Levy has almost no chance of getting these messages. Therefore he sends the messages, thinking Levy will get them.
All of these matters were made abundantly clear in the Summary.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
(Message edited by admin on May 11, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
"Please show us right here, right now these "existing records."
If you don't know them David, you should.
Besides, it's merely a matter of logic. Levy wasn't the "only man" who got a clear look at the Ripper. There was another man standing right next to him who got a better look...(see reports filed by Swanson & McWilliam)...so Anderson's own account doesn't jive with the witness being Levy. You've got the wrong man, David.
And by the way, you didn't solve the case. The case was correctly solved twelve years ago by Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on May 11, 2004) |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 1:27 am: | |
Hi David,
"they in fact may not be able to even read English well enough to understand your question."
I am German and I wrote the eMail in German.
So let's wait and see.
Thank you for the advice re linguistic Professor. I shall try and find one who can answer it this or next week.
But I will not go over that "juwe" one might find in papers of the 13th or 14th century, which meant "you" or "your" in the language of the time. That's too old, too unrelated and too far fetched to have any connections to the Goulston-juwe whatsoever.
Best regards
Christian.
P.S.:
"Hic Rhodos hic salta" you remember?
Doesn't matter how your theory is accepted, but respect for finally jumping!
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:27 pm: | |
""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 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?)."
>>I've typed this response four times before and apparently it was lost. This time, I'm going to save it on my hard drive in case it gets toasted yet again. How many other posts have been lost?
This is a matter of how you want to define JtR. You can define him smartly, in such a manner as to give yourself a chance to understand him, and you can define him numbly, without adequate reference to his surroundings or behavior, in which case you give yourself less chances to ask questions about him. "Psychopath" is in the former category, "Serial lust killer" in the latter. Each are possible definitions, but one is better for solving the case, all things considered.
Consider the following definition for "triceratops." (1) "An animal that lived in Arizona." Now consider as an alternative: (2) "A three-horned dinosaur that lived in the late Cretaceous period."
Can you see how (1) is less adequate than (2)? It doesn't tell you enough enough about the animal to permit the asking of enough questions to get to the point of really knowing it. (2) lets you refer to "dinosaur," "Cretaceous," "three-horned," and there are many other possibilities as well.
"Psychopath" used as an epistemological center results in the solution to the case, "Serial lust killer" doesn't. Therefore, the former is more appropriate for work on the case.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:35 pm: | |
1. "If you don't know them David, you should."
>>If you can't show them, Mr. Palmer, I suggest they don't exist.
2. "Levy wasn't the "only man" who got a clear look at the Ripper. There was another man standing right next to him who got a better look...(see reports filed by Swanson & McWilliam)...so Anderson's own account doesn't jive with the witness being Levy. You've got the wrong man, David."
>>As I've said many times, this is merely what Levy told the police, and Levy was telling a lie. The police have it written down wrong because Levy lied to them. My position is a simple one, see the Summary please. When Anderson wrote about "the only man who got a good look at the murderer," he was repeating what Levy told him--that he got a good look at the man, and could identify him again. Levy is lying all the way through, in different ways to different people, to save his skin.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 23
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
Some remarks about the nature of the psychopath.
a. Grandiose sense of self-worth
He is supremely confident that Levy and the other two men will get his message.
MG:Mr. Radka is describing delusional thinking.
An example of grandosity would be "I will do what I want and no one will ever be able to stop me"
b. Conning and manipulating behaviors
He is trying to con and manipulate them into thinking that if they give him to the police, the Jewish community will make them pay a high price.
MG: Again, Mr. Radka's supposition follows the delusional thinking pattern. The killer cons and manipulates his victims.
c. They are parasitic - they live off of others
He is trying to attach himself like a leech to Schwartz and Levy, to get them to turn Aaron in, after which he'll suck them dry of the reward money.
MG: This is another example of delusional thinking.
A better example of parasitic behavior would be if the killer gets his "living" from conning and manipulating a series of women to take him in and feed him or uses his glibness in some such other way to charm others into taking care of him.
d. They cannot form long-term plans that are realistic
He actually thinks his plans will work. However, in the long term, the plan is so unrealistic that no one can even figure out what he wants them to do.
MG: A psychopath may long to be rich and famous and may spin fantastic plans to achieve that goal even though he has no talents or skills. He will make no actual steps toward the goal and will soon give it up for yet another grand scheme.Because the world owes him a living.
e. A lack of empathy for others
He cannot imagine himself standing in Levy's shoes concerning the graffitus and facial messages. If he could, he'd realize that Levy has almost no chance of getting these messages. Therefore he sends the messages, thinking Levy will get them.
MG: Empathy is related to emotions. A psychopath has virtually no native affect( proper emotional response to a given situation). As a child, for example, he may laugh instead of cry if his dog is hit by a car. Psychopaths learn to mimic human emotions by observing others,and they are very good observers.
The killer's lack of empathy would be shown by the disregard he shows- for example not caring at all what the reaction of the person who finds Kelly's body will be.He not only doesn't care, it would never occur to him that there would be emotions involved.
The victims are nothing more than convenient pieces of meat for him to vent his needs upon and when he's done with them they are garbage. Remember, he's not overcoming a human repugnance, HE DOES NOT HAVE repugnance and doesn't understand that it and most other emotions really exist and effect people.
The killer may indeed show no empathy but the example Mr. Radka gives is inappropriate.
I don't know if JTR was a psychopath. Mr. Radka's own words,though, indicate that his Ripper was delusional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mags |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 586
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 2:21 pm: | |
>>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.
This is far more foolishly written. Mr Radka, I respect that you may have many impressive qualifications in modern philosophy and all the other things you claimed (can't remember what they were and can't be bothered to trawl back to check), but I have just as impressive qualifications in classics. Socrates, as he is portrayed by Plato (which is the only way we can know of him) bases his arguments in a belief that his questioning nature has been pre-ordained by the god Apollo as expressed to Chaerophon when he inquired of the oracle at Delphi. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
"The killer's lack of empathy would be shown by the disregard he shows- for example not caring at all what the reaction of the person who finds Kelly's body will be.He not only doesn't care, it would never occur to him that there would be emotions involved.
The victims are nothing more than convenient pieces of meat for him to vent his needs upon and when he's done with them they are garbage. Remember, he's not overcoming a human repugnance, HE DOES NOT HAVE repugnance and doesn't understand that it and most other emotions really exist and effect people.
The killer may indeed show no empathy but the example Mr. Radka gives is inappropriate."
>>Generally speaking, a two-dimensional and inadequate view of psychopathy. The killer would certainly be aware of the emotional impact his crimes entailed to others--wasn't the Whitechapel murders the biggest news story in the history of London? Thinking of him as just not caring or knowing about people's responses contradicts the facts of the case. Didn't he continue to perform hideous murders given the great public outcry? Why would it "never occur to him that there would be emotions involved" in finding Kelly's body? Emotions were certaibnly involved in the discovery of all his bodies. Notice also how he posed the body for the person discovering it, in order to elict the greatest possible emotional response.
If it is true as you say that "The victims are nothing more than convenient pieces of meat for him to vent his needs upon and when he's done with them they are garbage," then why did he repeatedly kill in the heart of the city, to tremendous emotional response of the citizenry? He could have certainly done a better job of mutilating in some stable, and been much safer to boot.
The idea that psychopaths don't know how emotions effect people, as you say, is false. Instead, you mean to say that psychopaths don't experience or feel bound by strong emotions themselves--their personal emotional life is too shallow for the forming of a personal conscience. But they have eyes and ears, and know shrewdly enough that others are affected.
Psychopaths don't "vent their needs upon" their victims, as you say, either. Not having inhibitions means not having anything to vent. No pent-up emotions are let off in the Whitechapel murders. Psychopaths show a fundamental lacking of basic human needs.
Copyright D. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
1. "Mr. Radka's theory is not that original in its basics. It is developed from Chapter Fourteen 'Kosminski', of 'Jack the Ripper the Uncensored Facts' by Paul Begg."
>>Not true. My theory is breakthrough original in many respects. Epistemological center, psychopathy, interpretations of the graffitus, double event, facial mutilations on Eddowes, Lusk letter, "Juwe," Duke Street, the cessation, the identification and several more originate with me.
2. "In this chapter Mr Begg develops his theorising on the Polish Jew scenario and also describes the theory developed from the same basis by Mr Fido. It is clearly described by Mr Begg as 'theorising' and contains what Mr Begg himself describes as 'pure speculation'. This subjective speculation is then developed with the use of the usual rhetorical questions and 'ifs', 'must haves' and 'may bes'.
Mr Begg introduces the idea that there may have been more to Levy's sighting than was admitted at the time and that he may be Anderson's witness. All the planks of Mr Radka's and Mr Nelson's theorising are to be found in this book and thus we have a theory built upon a theory."
>>Not true. Mr. Nelson and I agree with Begg and Fido on some key interpretive points it is true. What is wrong with that? If they are correct, they are correct. But surely Mr. Nelson and I are not piling theory on top of theory as you say. What both of us do, what any Ripperologist is supposed to do, is analyze the evidence. We do not take what Begg and Fido say about these issues purely on faith from them, as "speculation."
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.
|
|
|
|
