|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 393
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 1:50 am: |       |
And once again David, you've completely missed the plot.
As I indicated, even if Jugdenwerk could be shown to be in use in 1888, you still have the major problem that the word does not refer to Christianity, it refers to "youth work".
Meaning, a Jewish organisation could have "Judaism youth work", there could be non-religious youth work, etc, all refered to as Jugdenwerk with the appropriate qualifier. Without the qualifier, the word is neutral.
The grafitto does not contain any qualifier, and so to suggest that Juwes in the context of the graffito is a contraction for Jugdenwerk still does not bring in the Christian aspect that is critical to your theory.
And, without that Christian aspect, Juwes as the contraction makes absolutely no sense as an interpretation, while Juwes as a misspelling of Jews makes perfect sense. Conclusion? Your theory makes no sense as currently presented.
No amount of insults or avoiding the point or self denial gets around the basic fact that your theory is flawed at this point.
Anyway, what about that definition of "epistomological centre"? As I've said, it does not appear to exist as a philosophical term. Your continued reluctance to provide a definition for this rather unusual phrase does not instill much confidence in me with reference to your claims of a philosophical background. I'm asking for a definition to put to rest some doubts that are arising.
- Jeff |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:06 pm: | |
Mr. N,
"This bit you just put into quotation marks in your post was not said by anyone, so it is a false attribution."
Untrue. I copied and pasted it directly out of the May 14, 10:53 AM post of G. Longman above, as follows:
"Psycho-babble, German grammar???" --I above allege that Mr. N falsely attributes psycho-babble and misuse of German grammar to me.
Or do you instead mean your own post of May 14 at 1:23 PM, in which you yourself wrote:
"As pointed out above, "Juwe" to refer to "Jugendwerk" didn't come into use until the 1960s." --This is outrightly false. Nothing said by Mr. Wiebe precludes Germans from using "Juwe" as a contraction in 1888. He is only talking about how the Mennonites adopted it in the 1960s. The Mennonites are not all Germans.
I do not falsely attribute anything to anyone. Please show in quotation marks exactly what statement you believe I have falsely attributed to someone. If you cannot, please retract your above statement.
I've got no respect for your childishness such as--
"At first I thought you had gotten confused and meant "psychotic" when you said "psychopath" (since your scenario doesn't fit the description of psychopathology, as detailed in previous messages above), but now it seems maybe you meant "psychic" instead."
My positions on the matter of psychopathy are clear in the Summary. If you don't understand this field, read about it on your own. I didn't either when I first started reading about it. If you want to disagree, then say so in a reasonable way, and let it be. I feel sorry for the many people who have to witness your ongoing backhanded, ill-conceived attacks.
As I do not wish the overburdened management to close this thread, I will limit my responses to Mr. Norder and Mr. Hamm to a very brief statement of disagreement with them, as applicable, should they continue their colicky ways in the future.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 25
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
Does this mean that you're NOT going to
1. define "epistomological centre"
2. tell us what yours is?
Mags |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 98
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
David,
Looks like I missed the Psycho-Babble comment as I didn't receive an email copy of it for some reason, unlike all the others. So you did quote it from someone, but you were lacking attribution and made it sound like that it was an idle accusation I threw at you instead of something I had backed up with facts and different language.
But since you dismissed it so rapidly, here it is again: Even if "Juwe" existed as a German word back then, which it didn't as I have already explained to you from independent research separate from the facts posted by others above, "Juwes" would not be the plural. Also, your explanations of a psychopath as a delusional thinker lacking all emotions and poor at communication is complete psychobabble.
So those are the facts behind the grammar and psychobabble concerns... of course those are the least of the problems with your theory.
"your belief that what Mr. Wiebe posted here affirmatively precludes the possibility"
If you would pay attention you'd realize that that's not what I am saying. I also contacted the people at the website you linked to. They tell me that the contraction "Juwe" did not exist until the 1960s as the word it's a contraction of also was not used in the way you seem to think the Ripper meant it until the 1960s.
"My positions on the matter of psychopathy are clear in the Summary. If you don't understand this field, read about it on your own."
No, the problem here is that I have extensive training and education in the field, and what you are saying that psychopaths do and do not do is in some ways completely opposite of how they are really like.
You still are avoiding the point that some of the supposed symptoms of psychopathy you base your theory on (lack of all emotion, disordered thinking, poor communication ability) are not at all part of the diagnostic process for either the DSM IV checklist or Hare's PCL-R criteria. These two references are used by the professionals in this field. If you make a claim about psychopaths that is not supported in these two references, then your claim is wrong, unless you are claiming than you know more about the issue than the entire profession of psychiatry.
So, David... Time to face the music. Are you going to go and actually try to find proof that "Juwe" was used in the way you claim it was in 1888 or are you just going to attack and ignore the many people pointing out that it was not used until the last half of the 20th century? Are you going to go back and try to find support in the medical literature for your claims that your suspect would act in the patently irrational ways you claim he would as a psychopath, or are you just going to keep claiming that having read a book makes you more qualified to speak to the issue than people who took graduate university classes on the topic? (Oh yeah, I'm also curious about the "epistomological centre" thing you avoid explaining...)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 240
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Dan, Marie, Jeff, G.L. and the others:
Since you are all intelligent people I am going to guess that you continue to try to reason with David for the sheer intellectual joy of a hopeless task. Surely you know by now that there is nothing of substance to debate because David's theory is based wholly on faith. It is a belief that only he can divine what happened in 1888 and that whatever he imagines happened must have happened . . . or was meant to happen.
That the apron part found on Goulston Street was exactly half of the whole is important to the theory. That we don't know it was actually a half of the apron (nor even that JtR left it there) is not important because David believes JtR meant to cut it in half, even if he didn't.
That JtR cut tailoring marks into Catharine Eddowes cheeks is important to the theory. That we don't know that they were intended to be tailoring marks (or that they actually correspond to real tailors' marks) is unimportant because David believes JtR meant them to be.
That Juwes is a contraction for a German phrase meaning "Sunday School" is (or was) important to the theory. That no one can find any such contemporary usage is unimportant because David believes that is what JtR meant.
And on and on and on. The theory is simply built upon what David believes to be true and nothing more. When necessary, David believes a witness lied. When necessary, David believes police officials were guilty of misfeasance and nonfeasance.
Even the mysterious center (William Butler Yeats had his own ideas on that) is just blind faith. David believes JtR was a psychopath, so he had to be. While there is no proof for that assertion, it actually isn't a bad tenet of faith with which to start. That is, David's understanding of a psychopath seems to be that they are capable of any behavior necessary to sustain his belief so long as it does not positively violate the laws of physics.
Now this is not to say that David's theory might not be correct; like the pig who can't smell still finding an occasional acorn, David may have stumbled upon the truth. But, to accept the theory is to engage in a blind leap of faith. Obviously, David believes in his theory and has such unwavering faith in his intellect that to debate him on points of fact or logic is a futile exercise for both sides.
It seems to me time to move on. Having solved one puzzle for the ages, David and whatever acolytes he may have attracted ought to consider some other challenge; perhaps "what song the Syrens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women." Then everyone else can get back to discussing fact-based rather than faith-based interpretations.
Just a suggestion.
Don.
|
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 26
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Don-
You're right. I give up.
Although I'm not sure that positively violating the laws of physics would faze him all that much.
Maria
Mags |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 809
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
Don,I"m glad not to be included in this new "gang" of yours setting gleefully about tearing David"s work apart.
However I am no acolyte and at the present time
still remain unconvinced about all the suspects on offer.
With regards to David taking as the ripper a relative of Kosminski who psychopathically tries to make Kosminski a scapegoat while attempting to
claim the reward and also by using this unusual methodology to solve the case,I think Daved has added interest, imagination,and innovation otherwise rather tired old pedantic ways of looking at it.
That"s all.
I remain unconvinced myself.
I don"t think though that David is far off in terms of defining psychopathic behaviour which I have some knowledge of and experience of working with.I do accept Don that irrational thought processes are not the first thing that springs to mind when considering whether a behavoiur is psychopathic or not.But certainly a grand muddle is what they are renowned for,with everybody else left either deceived deserted betrayed or and yes it does happen ...dead!
Natalie
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 241
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
Natalie,
I really no longer want to post on this thread, but since you do not accept private messages I have no recourse.
I have no "gang" (and would worry if I did) and only addressed those particular posters because their questions had been answered in especially unsatisfactory ways by David.
Nor am I "gleefully" trying to tear apart David's work. After all his endless crowing about having "solved" the case, I was truly hopeful he had made a breakthrough when I finally got to read his theory. Instead, there was only a sieve of speculation -- the sort of effort he would have torn apart gleefully.
Regardless, I stand behind what I said in my previous post. To debate the theory with David is wasted energy.
Most new ideas or theories in any field are first reviewed by peers and there follows a lively critical exchange about the work. That has not ensued in this instance as even you might admit and almost wholly because David believes so devoutly in his theory. When any inconsistencies are "explained" by David asserting the Ripper meant to do what David believes regardless of the facts then any serious discussion is impossible.
That said, I respect your opinions and posts and I certainly hope to catch you on other threads.
Don.
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 814
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
Cheers and thanks for your response Don.Points accepted.
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 394
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hi,
Yes, I do admit I find it enjoyable to debate with David (well, debate might not be quite the right word). Partly because it's a bit like Christmas; you know something will arrive but you don't know what and are always surprised.
With the JtR case being riddled with books claiming to have solved the case when all they do is offer unsubstantiated and illogical conjecture, I think it's important to ensure that new claims offered here can be shown to be one of 1) a clear deduction from the evidence based upon reasonable premises 2) a reasonable inference drawn from other cases that are shown to be similar to the JtR case 3) the claim is clearly labled as "an assumption".
Deductions are the best conclusions, because if the premises are true the deduction is true; this is why the premises must be very solid. With JtR, few things outside the crime sequence itself will fall into this category. The only way to overturn a deduction is to attack the premises, because if the premises are true the deduction must also be true.
Inferences are shaky, because even if the evidence from the other cases is shown to be entirely accurate, it does not necessarily follow that the JtR case must be anything like them at all. Inferences should be viewed as "hypotheses", or guesses, that still need verification.
Assumptions are simply guess work. A statement made simply because on the off chance it is true, the rest of the story follows. Assumptions should be avoided at all costs. The only time an assumption can be justified at all is in the case where if you make one assumption, suddenly a lot of aspects of the case come into focus and make sense. This is refered to as "Bootstrapping the assumption". Really all bootstrapping does is allow one to ensure that the theory is internally consistent. It does not really confirm the assumption to the level that a deduction must be true. It's sort of like an inference, but the claim does not necessarily come from "other cases" and could just be a "gut feeling". Regardless, it still must be viewed as a "guess that needs verification". By which I mean, it tells us where to look for more evidence to see if the assumption can be confirmed or disconfermed; and either is always possible.
If David's solution was anything more than creative, then he wouldn't have to present non-answer after non-answer to the questions and problems posed to him. The section of his summary that deals with the double event has been targeted mostly because here is where the summary becomes most unrealistic. It is here where he makes the most concentrated series of unsubstatiated claims. All we've been asking is for him to substantiate these claims. Provide the information that warrents his assertions.
I, at least, don't really expect David to answer coherently, or specifically, any of the problems put to him. However, he does post his evasive reactions as replies. By doing so, it gives everyone who comes here the oppertunity to read David's summary, read the issues of concerns, read his replies, and then to decide for themselves what they think.
If we all just ignored David's summary, said we thought it had problems, and left it at that, we would be just as guilty as David. We would be expecting people who do not know us to accept our word that David's theory has problems while not demonstrating what we mean by that. People who come to the Casebook do not have the experience that we all have. And much of that experience and knowledge about the case is a result of the combined effort of everyone here posting their views, and posting their concerns about offered explanations.
I think it is everyone's obligation to compliment David for his creativity, to thank him for a novel story line, even to thank him for suggesting to look at the case with the proposed "solution" as a working model. And, everyone here has done just that. We've all read David's summary, and we've found it lacking.
We then went back and pointed out where and why we found it problematic. Rather than see this feedback as a good thing, David has taken the attitude that any suggestion of error on his part is evidence of lack of intellegence on our part for asking.
In other words, David has no intention of actually learning anything. It's been pointed out to him by various posters that psychopathy is not illustrated by the intentions he attributes to his proposed killer. This means that his assertion the killer is a psychopath contradicts his description. The simplest explanation is that David doesn't understand the psychological disorder psychopath. So, it was suggested he learn a bit about it, and learn about some of the more delusional disorders, such as schizophrenia (not the only delusional disorder, but a good starting point). David refuses to do either, and points to Clerkly, and offers examples from Clerkly. His examples demonstrate further his lack of understanding of the subtle differences between the disorders. The fact that the described character does not measure up on the psychopathic checklist, or the DSM IV's criterion (which are how the psychological condition of psychopathy are defined: meaning if you do not measure up on these, you are not a psychopath by definition) doesn't seem to bother David at all (which again seems to go against his claims of philosophical training; where a claim "A" is in Set 1, is rendered null and void if it can be demonstrated that "A" violates the definition for membership in set 1).
Anyway, in many respects I think there is sufficient information available now for people to make up their minds about whether or not David has solved the case.
And, although I may never know what an "epistomological centre" is, I won't lose any sleep over it.
- Jeff |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:52 am: | |
All, since this thread has outlived its usefullness, I will now be ignoring it. My thanks to all the worthwhile postings (to name only three of many) of R.J., Jeff, Don in rebuttal of various points David has attempted to prove. Those type of posts have been worth the frustrations of having to listen to David tap-dance his way through the minefield of his specious theory.
David, my advice to you would be to recognize that you have severe holes in your theory and utilize the interest and knowledge of your fellow posters to close them. Yet, you counter their insight with insults, slights and condescension. Whatever...you made your bed, now you must sleep in it...
Later folks, going to read Mr. Nelson's contribution to clear my head.
Billy |
G. Longman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 1:45 am: | |
I think that Mr. Souden has made some very valid points.
I too am off (to figure out just who I am).
George |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 7:29 pm: | |
Dear Natalie,
Since I have taken no part in the fore-going debate...knowing David better than David :-)I have suspected for some time that certain 'key' elements of David's solution would be prioritised,
Anderson's claim; Conflictual situation vis.,Jew & Christian; The role of the graffitus, with particular emphasis on the wording "Juwes"; The facial 'mutilations' of Eddowes; and the necessity to include Tabram as a canonical victim.
However, the psychotic nexus of the schizo-genetic familial relations ( critiqued by Cooper & Laing in the late 60's) is new in that regard, but there is no evidence to support such a contention with regard to the CASE EVIDENCE.As Brer Rabbit would say: I'm lyin' low an' sayin' nuffin.
Rosey :-) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
"Now this is not to say that David's theory might not be correct; like the pig who can't smell still finding an occasional acorn, David may have stumbled upon the truth."
>>If I solve the case, I solve the case. I must be a pretty good pig if I can do that! Let me reiterate in a nice way: Fact-based Ripperology has had 111+ years to solve the case, and has not done so. When this sort of thing happens, someone usually eventually comes along and applies the reason to the matter. In this case, I seem to have been elected by history to do that. Contrary to the above opinions, my work is based not on faith, but rationality.
Please note again that Ms Severn, the only other person here with real experience in psychopathy, is also the only person who seems not to have gone off half cocked in trying to tear my 16-page Summary to pieces. Once again, I much appreciate her fairness and her several contributions here.
Sixteen pages. Sixteen pages! After reading only that much, they think they not only know what I'm talking about, but also what they are talking about as well! Talk about premature conclusions!
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 7:38 pm: | |
Friends,
I will be away from my computer for most of the week of May 17th. I may have a brief look in on Saturday the 22nd at the earliest. Mr. Ryder is aware of my situation in this regard.
I've enjoyed discussing the A?R theory with you, and am looking forward to being with you again as soon as I am able. I sincerely appreciate the many constructive comments made on my work.
God bless everyone,
David
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
Hi,
I agree whole heartedly with Jeff's sentiments and no theory can be left unscathed if it has inherant weaknesses.
Looking back at the original summary lots of questions now spring to mind.
One of the most notable is the fact that it states JtR was in part after the reward money and "upped the ante" with the double murder.
His target? To place the blame on Aaron, a Jew, and get to the reward money via his "qualified" witnesses and by "fronting" Leather Apron.
The lusk letter is claimed, in capitals if you may, as GENUINE.
To "qualify" JtR was a Juwe, he sends half-a-kidney as proof the letter is from JtR, and... writes the note as if spoken in an Irish accent!
To quote:
"...the murderer seems to exhibit the same bilateral language disorder, twice mistaking writing for speaking. Use of the term Juwes in the written graffitus is a mispronunciation as “JOOZ” of a term a German speaker would say “YOO-whez,” and the Lusk letter is written as if in a spoken Irish accent."
Why not do the obvious and write is as a Jew - that is who he is trying to implicate I thought?
Did Aaron speak with an Irish accent or maybe if we find a Jew with an Irish accent in the Kosminsky clan we can actually name Jtr for the first time in 100+ years and put this case to bed.
Cheerio,
ian
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 7:47 pm: | |
"I disagree with the views of Mr. Hamm and Mr. Norder, but do not wish to engage in mutual insults with them. Please read my archived responses for my positions on these and related issues."
D. Radka |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
"When any inconsistencies are "explained" by David asserting the Ripper meant to do what David believes regardless of the facts then any serious discussion is impossible."
>>As I see it, the whole purpose of asking me questions about my work as adopted by Mr. Norder, Mr. Hamm and Mr. Souden is simply to put me under siege. I don't deserve that, and will not accept or support such condtions. The purpose of that is to bully someone, to hurt and injure him, to denigrate and derrogate him in front of others. That at least Mr. Norder is following such an antisocial muse can easily be seen by comments posted on a competing website, on which he is an active participant. On the other hand, if the purpose of asking questions is an honest desire to learn more about my work, to better determine what my perspectives are so that the questioner can make informed decisions concerning it, then I am happy to respond.
D. Radka |
D, Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:21 pm: | |
Mr. Hamm and Mr. Norder are ignorant of the syndrome of psychopathy, and, whether they are aware of it or not, are perpetrating a vandalism of Ripperology in what they write of it above. I urge interested parties to consult Cleckley and other psychiatric texts on the matter instead of them.
I disagree with their views, but do not wish to engage in mutual insults with them. Please read my archived responses for my positions on these and related issues.
D. Radka
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 101
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hey David,
"Fact-based Ripperology has had 111+ years to solve the case, and has not done so."
Fantasy-based theories have been used even more often and comes up with even worse conclusions, yours being just the latest example.
"Mr. Hamm and Mr. Norder are ignorant of the syndrome of psychopathy"
The publications of the American Psychiatric Association and Dr. Hare (whose work is based directly upon updating Cleckley's theories) directly contradict several of your claims about what psychopathy is (and ones you base your theory around). I suppose you believe that all of them are ignorant too?
"I disagree with their views, but do not wish to engage in mutual insults with them."
Then stop throwing out insults at anyone who disagrees with you and focus on trying to come up with logical reasons to support your theory instead.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
Hi,
Much has been said of the graffitus and why JtR had to waste 40 minutes finding chalk to write the message.
To quote:
The murderer needed to obtain chalk, compose the cryptic text in reflection of several rich contexts, especially the Duke Street sighting, and determine a suitable location where the writing would quickly provoke conflict between gentiles and Jews.
So because he's been seen in Duke street he suddenly has to search for chalk to write a cryptic massage. Sounds reasonable in and of itself.
BUT read back at the summary earlier than this statement.
To quote:
10. The Purpose of the Change in Modus Operandi, Duke Street:
SPECIALLY CHOSEN VENUE: (1) The time and position at the head of Church Passage were chosen to present the murderer and his victim to members and patrons leaving the Imperial Club at closing.
So he's been spotted and simply has to find something to leave a written message with a hidden meaning to cause a rift between the Jewish communities and between Jewish and gentile communities.
Errr, didn't he specifically choose the locations of both events so he could be spotted, a sign of planning in itself.
So why then "panic" as inferred into writing an unplanned message - maybe he only planned to be seen by one person and not three.
If it wasn't panic, then why the need to leave any message which hadn't been planned before - he seems to be a fastidious planner? (tailoring marks, longitudinal disection, correct places to be seen by Jews, earlier manipiulating Stride to stand there while he stands at the end of the street waiting for a passing Jew...)
If the message were specifically planned, he'd either a) have chalk readily available b) chalk the message right next to the body c) have written the message prior to the murder and leave it on the victim (BOTH victims of that evening) d) have used language with a polish slant to help implicate Aaron e) write a note later and send it with the half-a-apron f) shout Lipski at the second event g) etc etc etc...
A phsycopath _doesn't_ panic we're told. He has _no_ emotions or feelings, he's not afraid... so why, when he's spotted, must he suddenly panic and need to reinforce his message to Levy and spend 40 minutes searching for chalk?
He has signs of being a planner but strangely when his plan works and he is spotted he panics?
But we are dealing with a phsycopath, so I suppose anything is possible... (sigh, literally it seems anything we want to make up will fit JtR whether it make sense or not)
Cheerio,
ian
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Hi,
Anyone left on this thread? - reminds me of the 99 green bottle song as we all exit one by one leaving just David to argue with himself ;-)
Jeff raised some interesting points a few days ago.
In response to why bother talking to a brick wall, he pointed out that in much the same way we may fight against the Maybrick theory or the Sickert theory , those theories are out there in the public domain and anyone who wants to know about the theory could be seduced by the A?R theory.
We'll never convince the authors, but, does that matter - will you ever convince Pat Cornwell that Sickert was just a nice artist instead of a mad knife wielding wh*re murderer?
We may think (maybe some even hope) it is "snake oil" but how would the casual visitor know?
Some of the elements of A?R are seductive - the whistling teapot (were there any)? the sudden appearance of JtR walking towards Stride appearing out of nowhere (suggested waiting for a client to appear), maybe even the explanation of JUWE (although totally wrong and unsubstantiated in my opinion) etc
None of us expect David to answer our posts - at best he replies to them (there is a subtle but big difference).
BUT is anyone going to accept the challenge to produce a comprehensive rebuttal of the theory in it's entirety and in dissertation format?
A rebuttal in the message boards won't actually be read by the newcomer but they may wander into a dissertation responding to the theory.
Go back, read the original summary and post it's good and bad points, break it up into fact fiction, rumour, speculation, imagination, likely, unlikely, possible, whatever... just post your arguments don't expect David to answer them, just post 'em.
The language of the summary is, as Glenn once pointed out, very academic and high falluting and possibly leads a newcomer to be persuaded by the language without realising it's presented as such to hide the lack of substance (in my opinion) and to blur the lines betwen fact and fiction.
As a relative newcomer myself, even I find a lot of what the theory stands for as pure bunkum with holes big enough to drive a herd of elephants through, yet, since Steven has added it to the web site, critics need a formal response and not pick off points one by one on the message boards which no-one will see in 3 months time.
Anyone up to the challenge?
I suspect Dan may take up the challenge for Ripper Notes but I think I detect a recent weakening of Dan's resolve and he may end up supporting and defending the theory rather than challenging it :-)
Cheerio,
ian
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 395
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi David,
I am interested in your definition of "epistomological centre", which you use in a manner to suggest it is a fundamental concept with regards to your approach. I have let you know the steps I have already taken in my attempts to find a definition of this term, which I would have thought represents a serious and intellectual approach to understanding your theory.
To restate my efforts, I have made inquiries of a friend of mine in the philosophy department at the university where I work (I lecture in the psychology department, and though interested in philosophy, I am by no means an expert; and though I lecture in psychology, my area of expertise is not clinical disorders; although I do know something about them).
My philosophy friend, however, was not familear with the term "epistomological centre", and in his opinion it was ... an odd phrase.
I then logged on to the libarary computers and connected to the philosophy data base. This allows us to do word searches and find academic articles and publications related to a given topic. So I tried a search on "epistomological centre" and "epistomological center", neither of which resulted in any hits. Nor did a search on your name (I was interested to see if your "presentation" was listed as conference presentations are often included. No luck there either, but the data bases don't go back all that far).
So, I then hit a dead end. That leaves me with two possibilities. One, that you've made up the phrase as your own jargon because it captures some particular aspects and concepts that take too long to spell out completely. Or two, it's jargon someone else has created, probably for the same reasons, that is not in common use by modern philosophy scholars whose work is covered in the academic database.
In the latter case, I'm assuming you've found this phrase in someone's book. If so, there will be a definition of exactly what the author intends by this concept of an "epistomological centre". I've asked a few times for you to reproduce that definition, and those were serioius requests.
If, however, you are the author of the phrase "epistomological centre", then I've asked for you to produce your definition so that we all can be sure we are talking about the same thing. And, as a matter of interest, why haven't you chosen to use a more common philosophical term for this concept?
These are fair questions, and they are of interest to me and probably to others as well. They relate to what appears to be a fundamental concept in your approach. If you feel you are being unfairly treated because people are not understanding your approach, then it behoves you to define the concepts behind your approach.
If you are unable to provide a definition, then it would be interesting to at least hear why you are unable to define a term you use so freely.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi,
I just want to state that Ian's (signature "hemustadoneit") two latest posts are spot on and very well put indeed.
If I may quote:
"If it wasn't panic, then why the need to leave any message which hadn't been planned before - he seems to be a fastidious planner? (tailoring marks, longitudinal disection, correct places to be seen by Jews, earlier manipiulating Stride to stand there while he stands at the end of the street waiting for a passing Jew...)
If the message were specifically planned, he'd either a) have chalk readily available b) chalk the message right next to the body c) have written the message prior to the murder and leave it on the victim (BOTH victims of that evening) d) have used language with a polish slant to help implicate Aaron e) write a note later and send it with the half-a-apron f) shout Lipski at the second event g) etc etc etc...
A phsycopath _doesn't_ panic we're told. He has _no_ emotions or feelings, he's not afraid... so why, when he's spotted, must he suddenly panic and need to reinforce his message to Levy and spend 40 minutes searching for chalk?
He has signs of being a planner but strangely when his plan works and he is spotted he panics?"
I think these excellent points by Ian exemplifies in the best possible way what I wanted to say when I referred to Radka's psychopathic character as contradictory and constructed.
Radka accuses everyone here -- except Natalie -- for being ignorant on the subject, although he himself only refers to (and uncritically quotes) one single source to back up his theories, namely Cleckley.
Like Dan and Jeff has pointed out, there are other references regarding psychopathy to consider that are equally important, if not more, as Cleckley. However, Radka chooses to disregard those completely, since they don't fit his fairy-tales and whopping fibs.
Well, that's Radka's source criticism for you... very convenient indeed. Fitting facts into theory.
I am not sure if anyone's up for the challenge, though, Ian. Most of us have left this particular battle field, me included.
But I agree that opposing longer dissertations concerning the same subject is a fruitful idea; we can see that from the dissertation section on this website concerning Kosminski, for example.
But I assume most of us here has better things to do with our time than dissecting Radka's theory in such an elaborate manner -- at least until he goes public with his whole thesis (if such a piece really exists, that is).
So far I think Jeff, Dan, Donald and not least Mr Longman (among others) have done excellent jobs on trying to analyse and criticize Radka's methodology and summary to a very a serious and large extent. I believe we may have to be satisfied with that.
"But we are dealing with a phsycopath, so I suppose anything is possible... (sigh, literally it seems anything we want to make up will fit JtR whether it make sense or not)."
Spot on again, Ian. I couldn't agree more.
Now, back to the drawing board and the world of intellectual sanity. May this thread rest in peace as far as I am concerned.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 17, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Google is your friend...
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Epistemology
One of the hits I turned up.
I'm sure David could provide better definitions than this, but, it is strange your philosophy database has no references to this word?
Does it use "fuzzy" searches to check for possible mis-spelings?
The concept of an "Epistemological Center" may be of David's own making but read the definition and you can guess what the meaning of the whole phrase is.
Unless this is a really big conspiracy and David owns that web site and inserted his definition there - now that _would_ be scary.
Cheerio,
ian
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
