|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 3:07 pm: |       |
David,
you've certainly got everyone talking (not the other thing about guts falling out though). I have to say I am quite impressed that you seem to have created such a high level of interest. I guess this will go down well when trying to approach publishers? Any plans for a fully detailed book? as you say all we have presently is a summary.
regards
Jennifer |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 388
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Maria,
Thank you! You're point form presentation is much easier to follow than the long winded version I was going to present (along exactly the same lines).
David,
Honestly, the behaviours and thinking you attribute to your killer are not consistent with a psychopath. They are, however, consistent with a delusional type thought disorder, such as schizophrenia.
When I say you don't understand the material, I don't mean you are not capable of understanding it, just that you need to read the material and the examples more carefully. However, the examples you give demonstrate you do not yet understand the difference between psychopathic type thinking and delusional type thinking.
As a simply guideline (which, like any "rule of thumb" will not be clinically and/or scientifically acceptable) think of psychopaths as the embodyment of "self centredness". They want, they get angry and frustrated if their wants are interfered with, and they don't care what anyone else may think or feel. Now, your example of the fellow asking for a letter from his ex-wife? That's hard to believe he would do it, right? Why? Because it's hard to believe he would think his ex-wife would be pre-disposed to help him in this manner. But, he doesn't consider what she may think and/or feel, and that's what his mistake is. He didn't decide "If I write a letter to her that says 'I really enjoy getting mail' she will know that what I want her to do is write a letter to my girl friend and explain to her how much I love her"; that would be delusional, the more he believes this hidden message will be understood just because he wants it to be understood, the more delusional that person is.
Meaning, as our rule of thumb, delusional thinking is "magic thinking". If the thoughts and/or plans require "something magical" to happen in order to make the connection between "action" and "goal", then you've got delusional thinking.
So for example, if the killer thinks "I'll make up some marks that could be used by a tailor, cut them onto this woman's face, and the butcher-fellow I recognised will get a description of these marks (how? well, he just will - magic), understand they are my version of tailor's marks (of course he will, he's a butcher after all- magic), understand how I intend these tailor marks to be interpreted (how? my desire will transmit the interpretation? again, magic), and then will realise he shouldn't turn me in or his family will be shunned by all of the European Jewish community" (because, well, that's what I think and my desires get transmitted by - magic), well, what rule of thumb fits that?
Self centred thinking may expect people to respond to requests in ways that are unrealistic, and the request itself may be unrealisitic, but the request and what is the desired action are one in the same. The information is clearly transmitted. With delusional thinking, the "transmitted signal" and the "intended signal" are often unrelated. And that is what you continually describe throughout your summary. Delusional, not psychopathic.
Basically, everything would probably work better if you simply started from "delusional" killer. You could keep your version of what they must have thought, and pretty much claim any thought you want without need of having to prove it. And,.... oh, wait, that would mean your suspect becomes Aaron Kosminski. And that would mean you didn't solve the case first. Oh well, given that your summary contradicts itself, you still haven't solved it so what's changed?
- Jeff
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1777
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Hi,
I did promise never to indulge in this thread any further, but after reading the recent posts, i just simply has to second to Jeff's and Maria's brilliant pieces.
Maria is spot on regarding her comments on psychopathy and Jeff makes sense -- as usual.
I too believe that Radka is mixing things up a bit here. He is clearly talking about a delusional character.
I also want to point out to Mr Radka, regarding his comments on psychopathy as a relevant foundation for criminal activity, that we have a lot of psychopaths that are not criminal, but are using their "abilities" in other areas, like in politics and the business world. Radka's interpretation of psychopathy (clearly injected by the thoughts of Cleckley) is not only simplified, it is also based on the old notion that only those who commits violent crimes fits into the category.
Psychopathy is a complex condition with many variables, that is hard to grasp even for noted psychologists. There is a valid reason for why many in the field are in disputes and have contradictive opinions regarding the character traits of those who have this "disorder" and why they often are fooled by these individuals.
And that is mainly why psychopathy (or rather, ASPD) -- like many other psychological conditions -- is worthless to use as a foundation when you're performing a criminal investigation, apart from the fact that it is all theory to begin with.
But since Radka believes that the relatively outdated Cleckley has all the answers, this makes further discussions on the subject rather difficult.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 12, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 83
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
David,
"Psychopaths don't "vent their needs upon" their victims, as you say, either. Not having inhibitions means not having anything to vent."
Psychopaths definitely have needs and emotions, they just run to the extremely selfish and often violent ends of the scale.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 6:46 pm: | |
"I will only add that 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 the suspect was a fellow-jew he declined to swear to him."
Keeping that statement in mind, let me respond to Mr. Radka by making the following observations. Although it's getting rather tedious.
1) The record is clear. Levy testified that he didn't get a good look at the suspect. He wouldn't know him again. To believe Mr. Radka's theory, we have to accept, without evidence, that Levy was a liar.
2) McWilliam's report from the City Police identifies the witness with the 'good view' as Lawende.
3)Two reports by Swanson also identify the important witness in Duke Street as Lawende.
4)It's Lawende's description that is posted in the Police Gazette.
5) Either way, Anderson's own statement states only one witness had a good view of the murderer. Mr. Radka's theory conveniently leaves Lawende out of the equation. Even if Levy did come forward and refused to testify (no evidence for this, of course) Anderson would have sprained an ankle trying to get the second witness (Lawende) to look at the suspect. But, we hear nothing about this obvious bit of police procedure from either Swanson or Anderson. Not a peep. There is only 'one' witness, which alone, discounts Levy's involvement. QED.
6) For the theory to work, we have to accept the odious belief that Levy is not only a liar but also a moral coward: willing to let an innocent man go to an asylum, not to mention willing to let a murderer roam the streets.
7) The theory also has us believe that Anderson was a gullible fool. Levy testified at an inquest that he couldn't even describe the man, but we are to believe that he could waltz into Scotland Yard 18 months later and claim to positively identify a suspect, and Anderson would immediately believe him, ask no questions or make inquiries to determine that man's honesty or why he was suddenly both accusing and yet refusing to testify. Impossible to accept. If we are to believe that Anderson was that incompetent, why not merely accept that he was mistaken in his beliefs?
8) Levy somehow was able to discern the inner-workings of Anderson's mind and knew that Anderson was pre-disposed to accept that 'low-class' Jews wouldn't testify against one another. Also hard to accept.
9)As several Jewish writers have noted, there was no love lost between the assimilated Jews in London and the new immigrants from Eastern Europe. The former were suspicious of the latter. Someone like Levy or Martin Kosminski wouldn't have protected the murderer. Regarless, there would have been options. The man could have approached his Rabbi, and the Rabbi aproached the Home Office or Scotland Yard. A widespread pogrom would not have happened in London.
RP.
PS--- A repeat question. Where precisely was Lubnowski standing at 1:26 a.m. on the morning of the double-event? Last call for alcohol....
(Message edited by rjpalmer on May 12, 2004) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 5:45 pm: | |
"He didn't decide "If I write a letter to her that says 'I really enjoy getting mail' she will know that what I want her to do is write a letter to my girl friend and explain to her how much I love her"; that would be delusional, the more he believes this hidden message will be understood just because he wants it to be understood, the more delusional that person is."
>>Aren't you forgetting that the murderer is constrained in these instances to not state openly what he wants the people receiving his messages to act upon? If he does, the police will figure out what he wants to do easily enough, and he won't get what he wants and will probably be detected. Therefore these constraints become for him a further externalized something he wants, i.e. he wants to get around them or overcome them, and so he projects through them as well. Viola! A set of messages that will, he thinks, get him what he wants.
Generally speaking and for the 88th time, what all the posters sharply criticizing A?R have in common is a quite remediable lack of understanding of the psychopathic personality.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
G. Longman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
Mr. Radka's theory IS based on the Fido/Begg reasoning. This is illustrated by the fact that the whole thesis is entirely developed from the Polish Jew theory, in the main as proposed by Anderson and Swanson. However, it is nice to see that Mr Radka recognizes that his theory IS a theory and that it contains SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS of his own. Unfortunately he does not actually "analyze the evidence", he actually analyzes HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE.
It elevates Levy from his true position of a witness who did not really see enough to even describe the suspect, into Anderson's witness who got a good look at the suspect, recognized him, but then lied to the police. This is gainsaid by the facts as shown in the official documents and has not one iota of evidence to support it. Worringly, Mr Radka is now stating this as a fact.
Using this theory to develop his resolution of the case Mr Radka proposes scenarios that are as far-fetched as you are likely to encounter. It assumes many things that cannot be taken for fact.
So, if anyone was expecting Mr Radka to have actually solved the case after his years of hype they will be sadly disappointed. It is as far from solved as it ever was.
This topic seems destined for endless discussion and argument, as are so many of the ideas thus raised. Anyway, the final verdict of all this must be CASE NOT SOLVED. |
D. radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:16 pm: | |
"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."
>>Yes, and I get my ability to count all my little piggies from the creamed spinach my Mom fed me. But when I count I get ten, and when Socrates asked questions he attained a status unparalleled in rational thought.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 6:32 pm: | |
1. "Radka's interpretation of psychopathy (clearly injected by the thoughts of Cleckley) is not only simplified, it is also based on the old notion that only those who commits violent crimes fits into the category."
>>This is a totally self-contradictory statement, right on its face. NONE of Cleckley's case histories are violent criminals!
2. "But since Radka believes that the relatively outdated Cleckley has all the answers, this makes further discussions on the subject rather difficult."
>>Certainly I don't believe that he has all the answers. However, I do believe that the people he studied were real, that what he said they did they actually did, and that they comprise a definite reaction type as he said. He presents truthful observations of their historical behaviors. Label them psychiactrically what you will, change the labels when you wish, their type is also JtR's type. That's all I'm claiming, Cleckley-wise.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 9:05 pm: | |
1. "To believe Mr. Radka's theory, we have to accept, without evidence, that Levy was a liar."
>>But YOU accept, with nothing else to go on but Levy's word following the Duke Street sighting, that Levy was NOT a liar. How am I any different from you? You choose to believe him without further evidence. At least I've got the center to go on.
2. "McWilliam's report from the City Police identifies the witness with the 'good view' as Lawende." "Two reports by Swanson also identify the important witness in Duke Street as Lawende."
>>Come on. Three men walked together. All could have had a good view. You are simply believing Levy. This isn't based on police investigative work, but merely what someone said he saw.
3. "It's Lawende's description that is posted in the Police Gazette."
>>When I just turned 15 years old, I got my picture posted in The New Britain Herald for catching a 5 pound bass out of Clay Pit Pond, Berlin, CT USA. Caught it on an Arbogast Jitterbug. But see what I mean? Maybe someone else caught that bass, and I just posed with it.
4. "Even if Levy did come forward and refused to testify (no evidence for this, of course) Anderson would have sprained an ankle trying to get the second witness (Lawende) to look at the suspect."
>>Lawende could have been involved and said that he did not recognize the man. Or perhaps Anderson was so certain with Levy that he didn't feel a need to call Lawende. Lawende was apparently working with a group of officers that didn't include Anderson. Many other explanations are possible. I will admit, this is a quandry. But what Anderson said is what Anderson said--you are not arguing against A?R here, you are arguing against Anderson.
5. "For the theory to work, we have to accept the odious belief that Levy is not only a liar but also a moral coward: willing to let an innocent man go to an asylum, not to mention willing to let a murderer roam the streets."
>>The BEST place for Aaron was the asylum, considering the shape he was in. The murderer HAD IN FACT stopped killing for 18 months prior to the identification, and Levy felt his hold on him was enough to prevent any further crimes. Plus, Levy probably realized that the main reason the murders took place to start was the association of the murderer and Aaron--by removing Aaron from the murderer, the motive at least decreases.
6. "The theory also has us believe that Anderson was a gullible fool..."
>>Anderson was already more or less convinced that the murderer was a Polish Jew living in the murder district, protected by his people, etc. Aaron filled the bill perfectly. What is wrong with Levy telling Anderson he's seen the man in the street? He could say he THOUGHT he didn't get a good look at him, but hey, here he is and I remember him well enough. I guess I DID get a good enough look at him after all, or else I wouldn't know him now!
7. "Levy somehow was able to discern the inner-workings of Anderson's mind and knew that Anderson was pre-disposed to accept that 'low-class' Jews wouldn't testify against one another. Also hard to accept."
>>These inner workings were accentuated in Anderson's mind because of what Swanson told him of the house-to-house searches I will admit, but SCADS of people in Whitechapel came to the conclusion that JtR was a Polish Jew as a result of the Leather Apron affair. LOTS of people, including police, believed it. Levy would know this going in.
8. "As several Jewish writers have noted, there was no love lost between the assimilated Jews in London and the new immigrants from Eastern Europe. The former were suspicious of the latter. Someone like Levy or Martin Kosminski wouldn't have protected the murderer. Regarless, there would have been options. The man could have approached his Rabbi, and the Rabbi aproached the Home Office or Scotland Yard. A widespread pogrom would not have happened in London."
>>I fully agree with you concerning that no pogrom could happen in Britain. But the Jews of the time, having recently lost all they had in eastern pogroms, wouldn't think this way at all. They well might make Levy pay a price if he informed. Levy would certainly have to take these matters into fearful consideration, especially considering his personal connection to the murderer somehow. I'm not saying there were no options--I'm only following the evidence.
9. "Where precisely was Lubnowski standing at 1:26 a.m. on the morning of the double-event?"
>>I can make no sense of this question. Please repeat.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
"Psychopaths definitely have needs and emotions, they just run to the extremely selfish and often violent ends of the scale."
>>No. They are not on the same scale as normal people, and exhibit "an irrationality that is gross and obvious." As Cleckley says, they represent "madness in excelsis masked behind a veneer of real sanity." You are basing what you say on your simple and lazy readings of lists of characteristics of psychopaths, thus you lack insight.
David M. Radka, 2004. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1780
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 5:12 am: | |
Radka,
"This is a totally self-contradictory statement, right on its face. NONE of Cleckley's case histories are violent criminals!"
I didn't say that Cleckley (although you are influenced by him) talked about criminal psychopaths -- but that you did.
I have a feeling that you read him like the devil reads the Bible.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 5:36 am: | |
David,
But YOU accept, with nothing else to go on but Levy's word following the Duke Street sighting, that Levy was NOT a liar. How am I any different from you?
I know this wasn't directed at me but I feel I should say something about this. There is a big difference between presuming someone is telling the truth and someone is lying. Do you go around presuming everyone is a liar unless you find evidence that they are telling the truth? When someone says something, most people presume they are telling the truth unless something proves that they were lying. I'm sorry but it seems to me that you are only saying Levy lied so it will fit in with your theory as there is no evidence that he did lie.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 589
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:10 am: | |
Yes, and I get my ability to count all my little piggies from the creamed spinach my Mom fed me. But when I count I get ten, and when Socrates asked questions he attained a status unparalleled in rational thought.
Irrelevant Mr Radka. Your original insult was based on a denial that Socrates based his questioning philosophy in a belief in the Gods. No amount of supposedly clever little put downs will change the fact that you were wrong. In fact I did make a major mistake in my original post which I only realised later, yet you failed to pick me up on that one and instead decided to attack an area in which I was entirely correct. So much for your knowledge of the era!
Anyway, this is pointless as it has nothing to do with your theory, only with your ego. |
Benji Wiebe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
Dear all,
sorry to interrupt this highly philosophical discussion. As we've been contacted by several individuals in this group, I thought I might as well answer personally. I'm one of the employees of the german mennonite "Jugendwerk" which is abbreviated "juwe". An thank you Mr. Radka for your cynical coment on not trusting mennonites one way or the other, and their assumed language abilities.
Funny thing: "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
For me, that's clearly how someone not very high educated would spell "The jews", or as Chris Scott put it "a phonetical attempt to write Jews". I can see no reason, why one should assume this beeing a german abbreviation for youth work (Jugendwerk - ju we). But at least I can assure you that it has nothing to do with the youth-work done by the mennonites in Germany, as we startet using this abbreviation in the late 1960s. (Before we were called "youth commitee"). As an abbreviation the word juwe is used generally for organisations, doing youth work. (as "werk" could be translated with "(non profit) Organsiation" and "Jugend" is the german word for "youth"). There's nothing christian or mennonite about it.
All the best
Benji Wiebe |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 87
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Hi David,
""Psychopaths definitely have needs and emotions, they just run to the extremely selfish and often violent ends of the scale."
>>No. They are not on the same scale as normal people, and exhibit "an irrationality that is gross and obvious." As Cleckley says, they represent "madness in excelsis masked behind a veneer of real sanity." You are basing what you say on your simple and lazy readings of lists of characteristics of psychopaths, thus you lack insight. "
How do you know what I am basing my words on? This is all coming down to you just claiming to know more than anyone else but with nothing to back it up.
I'm not going to pretend to have professional level credentials here, but I did take graduate level university classes in psychology and counseling, including a major focus on abnormal psych, which was my emphasis. Apparently your background is that you read a book that was based upon research more than 50 years old and are coming up with your own unique interpretations of what it said.
These days there are two checklists for determining psychopathology, the DSM IV Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnostic criteria and Dr. Hare's PCL-R (psychopath checklist-revised). Neither one includes this irrationality and delusional thinking you keep bringing up. There's also nothing in them that support your beliefs that a psychopath is horrible at communication or that they lack all emotions. Yes, they are deficient in guilt and empathy, sure (that's pretty much the most important part of the checklist right there), but not anger and so forth like you say. Heck, they are pretty much some of the most angry people out there, and for you to claim that they don't need to vent their feelings on people because they don't have any is totally off the mark.
You look at the case and call your killer rational when it suits your purposes and irrational when it fits your scenario better. There's no rhyme or reason to it, and it's certainly not consistent with psychopathy. All your talk of your "center" and your supposed superior knowledge is irrelevant and just a screen to hide behind instead of dealing with the severe problems in your theory.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
1. "...thank you Mr. Radka for your cynical coment on not trusting mennonites one way or the other, and their assumed language abilities."
>>My comment was based on what I surmised as an English-speaker writing in English to German-speakers. I certainly did not show any distrust of Mennonite people.
2. "...as Chris Scott put it "a phonetical attempt to write Jews".
>>What Mr. Scott was supposed to do was ask how old the contraction 'Juwe' was in German, not prejudice Mr. Wiebe as to how the writer of the graffitus might have been thinking. Is Mr. Wiebe a Ripperologist? For how many years has he studied the case?
3. "...it has nothing to do with the youth-work done by the mennonites in Germany, as we startet using this abbreviation in the late 1960s."
>>That's you, not the German language or all the people who use it in Germany.
Generally speaking, the tone of Mr. Wiebe's reply makes it obvious that he has been structured and conditioned by people on this web site who want to use him to shoot me down. Nothing he says indicates he has even been fairly apprised of what the real issues here are. Plenty of people could have been using the contraction 'Juwe' in Germany in the nineteenth century, in various places, and for various purposes including Christian youth work.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3094
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Is there a German equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary? Where's Thomas Schachner when you need him? 
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
>>Anderson was already more or less convinced that the murderer was a Polish Jew living in the murder district, protected by his people, etc. Aaron filled the bill perfectly. What is wrong with Levy telling Anderson he's seen the man in the street? He could say he THOUGHT he didn't get a good look at him, but hey, here he is and I remember him well enough..."
Interesting; so you are, in fact, admitting that Anderson was a gullible fool. Let me sure I get this right. Anderson was so utterly predisposed to believing the murderer was a Jew---(on the strength of a failed house to house search, nonetheless!)--- that even a man who previously stated at an inquest that he couldn't even begin to describe the man he saw talking to a woman now comes forward 18 months after the fact and says, "hey I saw him again in the street." And Anderson accepts this hook, line, and sinker, and the case is closed in his mind. Smokes. I haven't been Sir Robert Anderson's greatest advocate, I admit, but even I assume he was capable of better criticial thinking than this.
Anderson wrote the following (Blackwood's)
"I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an aslym, the only person who had a good look at him..." etc.
When the suspect was caged... He's clearly stating that the man was FIRST suspected by the police, and the attempt at identification came later. In otherwords, Aaron Kosminski had already been a 'person of interest' to the police. This agrees with the statement in the Macnaghten memo, where Sir Mel tells us that there were "many circs." connected with the suspect Kosminski. There was at least some modicum of suspicon against him. In your theory, you seem to be saying there were no circs. nor even police knowledge of Aaron K. until Levy waltzes into Scotland Yard one fine morning. I can't believe this is how it all went down.
Next item.
">>But YOU accept, with nothing else to go on but Levy's word following the Duke Street sighting, that Levy was NOT a liar. How am I any different from you? You choose to believe him without further evidence."
Yes, precisely. Well stated. I choose to believe Levy was telling the truth at the inquest, until I am confronted with further evidence. And the trouble is, no one has found any. .
I have to agree with Mr. Hamm & others that when reading your dissertation for the first time my eyebrows raised at your unsupported claim that Jews were using the slang "Lipski" in 1888. It's possible, but there is no evidence of this that I am aware of, and further, this isn't the way slang usually works. In the U.S., derogatory slang for people of African descent has now passed into casual urban usage, but this didn't occur until the word had been shunned for decades. "Lipsky" was nothing like this. "Lipsky" was a very topical, localized insult. It's obvious from Abberline's report that it's meaning wasn't known in wider London. It was used by local Gentile roughs to insult Jews, and the commonsense implication would be that the man who attacked Liz Stride was a local Gentile.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on May 13, 2004) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 236
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
I thought you told us you would be off the boards this week Mr. Rakda -- promises, promises.
Regardless, the continued fascination with this thread and its gossamer-like theory is puzzling. Mr. Radaka only answers those questions that allow him to hide behind Cleckly's research (and even then none of the patients studied by Cleckly displayed behavior remotely like the Ripper in the theory). Any other questions Mr. Radke deigns to address get lost in his insolence and self-absorption.
Meanwhile, Scott Nelson has posted an essay on much the same subject and it has gone largely unnoticed. Of course, Mr. Nelson's essay is well written, easily understood and displays an ability to research somewhere beyond his own mind and life experiences . . . so that may explain why it has not received the interest it deserves. After all, it is always the squeaky -- or eccentric -- wheel that gets attention.
Don. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Don,
Yes, very true words. Scotts work is very good.
I have left this thread very much alone. Simply because I felt it would evolve into a very complex piece. I am now sitting with a smug mug !
Scott has kept it simple. No need to hide behind work of Cleckley or Socrates (he was a hell of a player wasnt he? mmmmm? jumpers for goalposts...).
Yes, I guess its because Scotts stuff panders to my simple mind.......or maybe its because the answer is simple.
Too simple for some I reckon.
Monty
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 237
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
Monty,
This should really be on your Pub Talk sports thread, but yes, Socrates was great. But then Brazil seems to produce world-class players with assembly line efficiency.
Don. |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Stephen,
although you adressed Thomas specifically, may add my 2 Pfennig ;-):
"Is there a German equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary"
Not really. The last instance re spelling is the "Duden", and there are a few Lexica with 12 or more volumes, e.g. Brockhaus or the like.
I looked in both (each from 1937, the oldest I have) and nowhere did I find a "juwe" whatsoever, be it a word or an abbreviation.
As I said, I also contacted a University to use every source possible. I wait for an answer which I will post asap.
David,
with all respect,
the German language is very likely the wrong track for this juwe-mystery.
And a little sidenote: never underestimate the foreign language abilities of people outside native-speaker-world.
Christian
(Message edited by chrisjd on May 13, 2004) |
thomas schachner
Sergeant
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
hello everybody,
i'm here now after spry told me to look at this thread - which i ignored the whole time..sorry about that .-)
in germany we have a dictionary called "der duden", but i didn't find anything so far. i'm sure they throw out all the old words not used in germany anymore.
as mentioned above "juwe" in germany is nowadays used as a short-term for "JUgendWErk". but i'm also very certain that the word was used in germany before.
in the late 12th century the word appeared in the german language, but it's meaning was just "YOUR"
example.
old german sentence:
Kinder, bringet juwe tinse, bolde bolde!"
proper german translation:
Kinder, zahlt eure Steuern, schnell schnell!
english translation:
kids, pay your taxes, fast fast!
don't ask me why the kids had to pay taxes, but that's what i found out so far.
so...the sentence -->
"the -YOUR- are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"
makes even less sense.
if it refers indeed to the youth-work, which i doubt, then why should it mean "MEN" instead of "Kids"? .-)
greetings from germany
thomas.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
"Is there a German equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary? Where's Thomas Schachner when you need him?"
>>I wouldn't necessarily let the matter be decided on this sort of thing either. People in Germany could have been using the term colloquially without its being recorded in lexicon-type reference works, and the Ripper could have been picking up on experience of this sort. Contractions go in and out of style over periods of time. Some contractions used in America about the time of the Revolutionary War, such as "sha'nt" for "shall not" and "'tis" for "it is" are examples. Over the past 250 years or so, sometimes these are in general use, sometimes not. Robert Frost used "sha'nt" in his poetry during the twentieth century, when few other people used it in speaking.
Generally speaking, the impression I get of the recent few days of posts is that of an elementary school student arriving at school with a new pair of shoes, and many of his so-called friends circling him and hurling insults, stones and mud at him and his new shoes because they don't have new shoes themselves. It isn't really the fault of the shoes--they may be a good pair. A good example is Mr. Souden above, creatively mispelling my name three different ways to insult me, preferring Mr. Nelson to me, etc. One needs to make a decision whether one is going to adhere to reason on the one hand, or childishness on the other.
D. Radka |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
