|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 9:13 am: |       |
Mr Radka in a previous post, you called me a blowhard,(which I don't dispute, by the way) for suggesting that because your theory is so complex, holes would begin to appear in it.
I now learn that that your interptetation of the word Juwes, doesn't seem to have come into existence until the 1960's.
How do you explain this?
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Mr Radka you wrote.
"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!"
When did you first visit this web site?
I would suggest that some time in the past(as your theory was evolving) you carried out an Internet search for the word Juwe, and came up with this web site.
AHA you thought, what better way for JTR to warn Levy of the consequences of his informing on him, than to write the word "Juwes", meaning a German youth organisation, thus implying to Levy that his fellow Jews would condem him for fraternising with Christians.
Only thing is, you didn't check up did you? The word Juwes wasn't used by this organisation until the 1960's.
That must of been a blow to you, as I believe that the Jugendwerk is your sole reference to the word Juwes.
You have, (since learning of the 1960's "Juwes") waffled on about the fact that the word Juwes could have been used in 1888.
Yes it could have, but for your theory to be correct,it would require JTR himself to understand the word Juwes, as meaning the young workers in a 1960's Christian Organisation.
Not very likely, I'd think you'd agree.
Someone posted the following,
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).”
You replied.
">>David M. Radka! David M. Radka has found it!"
Yes, you found it Mr Radka, the 1960's Jungendwerk. That's what you found. No relation to the Graffiti in Goulston Street though.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 397
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the search. However it's not epistomology by itself that I would like David to define. That is a well known word in philosophy circles. I think I suggested at one point David's phrase "epistomological centre" would be the "centre of knowledge", or the "focus of understanding", type thing. It's the combination of the two words to get the concept of "epistomological centre" that I'm concerned with.
Epistomology is the study of how we know things, the philosophy of knowledge. I just want to know what David means, specifically, when he calls things the "epistomological centre".
If this is someone else's jargon, I've asked him to let me know who the author is and what book or article he found it in when he provides the definition I would expect a decent author to include because this is a highly unusual phrase.
Of course, if he's created it himself, then I've simply asked him to provide a specific definition of the concept he is trying to capture by using that phrase; and out of curiosity, I would like to know why he's not chosen a more common phrase like "My fundamental premises..." (which may, or may not, be an appropriate substitution depending upon his definition of "epistomological centre"). If his concept of "E.C." cannot be substituted with "fundamental premises", then perhaps explaining the subtle differences would help.
These are honest questions to which I'm interested in his answers. They address something that is important to the understanding of his approach and summary. And, for someone with as much philosophical training as David has told us he has, they should not be difficult nor take up much of his time.
- Jeff
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
"I need not offer empirical data to support every logical conclusion either... The excessive use of empiricism is what has damned Ripperology to the realms of the fraudulent for decades. "
Mr. Radka returns here to his favorite theme. Of course, it's really a non-sequitor, a jumble of various logical errors, including a variation on the old "Either/Or" fallacy. He's saying that since empiricism has "failed" to solve the case it's therefore o.k. to resort to metaphysics. This is sneaking in through the kitchen. (Note also the loaded phrase, linking ‘empiricism’ with fraud).
One might simply argue that there isn't, wasn't, and never will be any "empirical data" (ie., evidence) to pin the crimes on anyone. The murderer left no trace. (Sir Robert Anderson, a lawyer, even admitted this, after a fashion). The "failure" to solve the case, therefore, wouldn’t really be a failure, it would be the correct ethical resolution. The D.A. doesn’t have enough evidence to prosecute, why must he be damned? This is a strange mind-set of Mr. Radka's, I think. Is he saying that the case be solved by hook or crook?
Alas, in the end, Mr. R's shuffles his feet a little and offers up item #44.
44. Might There Be Any Empirical Evidence Readily Available To Assist In Proving the Thesis of Alternative Ripperology?
The dinner guests have arrived at the banquet, and the host is now blushing. Having bad-mouthed empiricism, the clock has struck 7 P.M. and he realizes the silver platters are empty. He makes a quick phone-call to his friend the Empiricist, telling him to dash around the corner for a bucket of chicken. If Mr. R "need not offer" empirical data to "solve the case", why the last-minute appeal? |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 398
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
I fully agree. David's claims that the "fraudulent claims" come from emperical researchers is amusing. Such claims usually come from those who start with a full blown theory that has little evidence behind it. Then, they set out to "prove it", and come wind, rain, or shine, you can bet your boots they do "prove it".
They may claim to be "emperically based researchers", but it's usually quite clear they've mislabeled themselves. In fact, it's the emperical researchers who tend to be the ones pointing out "such claims are unfounded", and pointing out how the claims are not supportable or justified.
- Jeff |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
"He's had his fifteen minutes.
Let him paint cans of beans.
On another channel."
>>Ah, but we're just beginning! What's the matter, don't you want the solution of the case to become known and well understood? Let me be your teacher.
D. Radka
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
1. "Psychopaths are more than capable of experiencing rage and anger. They experience all sorts of emotions, provided that the emotion is centred upon themselves. If a psychopath feels they have been "wronged", they become hugely frustrated and angry, what they don't care about is the reverse. If they perform an action that "wrongs" someone else, they do not consider the other person's "response" (i.e., the other person becomming angry/frustrated) is valid. This is because when they are the perpetrator of the action that wrongs the other, the action is meant to fulfill their wants (the psycopaths)."
>>The above is typical of the dreary incompetence in evaluating psychopathy expessed by the thousands. Anyone can get hold of this drivel all over the internet, copy it down somewhere else without considering what is meant, and feel like they actually know something and have made a contribution. While it is possible for a psychopath to ape any observed emotion on the part of others, it is a hallmark of the disorder to be personally incapable of deep, driving or enduring emotion. This means that a psychopath can react apparently in a simplistically maudlin, melodramatic or stereotypical sense, but he's not expressing anything from within, nor is he in the least aware that he has any personal problem because he's not expressing anything from within. He simply doesn't HAVE any within, you see, having no adequate emotions or motivations concerning anything whatever. A psychopath can go out and do things that would indicate to any normal person that he must be experiencing peak emotions of anger, joy, fear, regret, love, hate, or any other strong emotion. When a psychopath is acting in this manner, he appears deceptively the same as a normal person would if experiencing these feelings. But the problem is, as has been determined by voluminous clinical studies, he's just faking the feelings to get what he wants from others. When you talk above of a psychopath's feelings being "centered upon himself," all you are doing is describing any normal, emotionally self-centered person from your experience, not the super-radically egocentrical and pathological psychopath. The nature of the psychopathic personality, a profound pathology described by Cleckley as dissolute beyond psychosis and ultimately unimaginable to a normal person, even to a psychiatrist, is way over your limited horizon. You are making out to us here that you know about something that you manifestly do not know about. All you did was read a few lines on web sites, run down some lists of psychopathic characteristics simplified for the masses, and fudge it together posthaste in virtue of some non-psychopathic people you've known who seemed similar to you. Then hup! hup! you're ready to attack me, in your opinion.
2. "Glenn's presentation of a "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.
>>What has this got to do with the Whitechapel murderer? How is it at all on target? You talk to make yourself think you know something, not from a position of knowing something. Talk is not in itself knowledge. If the murderer was a psychopath, then he was a psychopath. If a paranoid schizophrenic, then a paranoid shizophrenic, etc. He would be studiable and analyzable according to his basic type under the evidence. But why think of him as maybe one type, maybe another, as you have to do under the "criminal type" convenience? He'd have to have some kind of very decisive, very determinative psychiatric problem underlying what he did, in order to do what he did--why not study that, and know him through it? Your fascination with "criminal types" is obtuseness, not sharpness. People of many different types commit robbery, for example, for a variety of reasons. Does that mean there is such a thing as a "robber type?" The same is true of sexual serial murderers. The notion of such study reeks with conflations.
3. "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.
Which means, most of what we know about the psychological disorders comes from people who do not perform the kind of actions we have to work from."
>>The psychopaths who commit sexual serial murder are every inch the same as the ones who do not. The only differences are a few otherwise insignificant events that structure their attention in a certain direction at a certain time. Why is that so hard to grasp? These people have nothing inside them--they do not need to go through a complex process of psychological deterioration, "unresolved conflict," hatred of the mother, etc. to get to be sexual serial murderers (although many make claims for themselves in this regard to beat jail time.) Psychopathy is fundamentally and massively associated with deception, manipulation, lying, taking advantage of others, antisocial actions, and criminal activity on all fronts. The only difference between a psychopath who does not engage in crime and one who does is timing--he hasn't gotten to overtly breaking the law yet, or he hasn't yet been caught. I've said it before and I'll say it again--if you think "what we have to work with" is the criminal actions sexual serial murderers commit, then you are already lost in conflations.
4. "This is where inductive profiling of criminal personalities comes into play. You look at people who have committed similar kinds of crimes, then from that data base, you look for things that separate those particular criminals from criminals who committ other crimes. If you can find such information, then when presented with the new case, you can make some inferences about the person who comitted these crimes."
>>You are trying to sell us a bridge in Brooklyn.
5. "Because you are making inferences based upon information gained from other crimes, and trying to make a prediction about a specific individual who comitted the current crimes, not all the inferences will be correct. But, if the original study is done properly, and if it is valid to generalise the pattern and associations found from the original data set to those outside that set (and there are ways to statistically test such models), then you do get useful investigative information (not probative, meaning not admissable in a court of law). Glenn's focus on using criminal behaviour classifications is a much better starting point, and would be a much more suited "centre" upon which to build a theory. Why? 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."
>>Whew! In closing up this massive diremption of common sense and pseudolearnedness, let me just say that the last thing I'd ever do is study JtR in terms of "criminals who have committed similar kinds of crimes as JtR." I study JtR on the facts of his own case, based on the information we have about him and the nature of his personality from his crime scenes. I'm not going to confuse or mix him up with anybody else based simplistically on the other person having done what I privilege myself to think of as "the same" as what he did.
D. Radka
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1810
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Radka wrote:
"I study JtR on the facts of his own case, based on the information we have about him and the nature of his personality from his crime scenes. I'm not going to confuse or mix him up with anybody else based simplistically on the other person having done what I privilege myself to think of as "the same" as what he did."
>>Based on facts???? You mean... on your imagination and on psychological mumbo-jumbo.
Not many of your deductions are supported by the crime scene evidence, Mr Radka, from a factual point of view. But since everyone else here besides you are "incompetent", what do we know?
I can't believe this thread still lives...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Glenn, you better believe it.
David has the artistry of a Warhol, scratching at the toilet rims of life where nobody even bothers to look, he finds a universe there, and attempts to impose the bacteria he finds there on the radical cleansing agents that we daily use to clean our bogs.
Meanwhile somewhere a van Gogh sketches a bright sunflower which scratches at the edge of the universe with its common beauty.
True brilliance has no copyright, for none would dare.
I suppose the answer is to flush regularly. |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 9:31 pm: | |
"I need not offer empirical data to support every logical conclusion either... The excessive use of empiricism is what has damned Ripperology to the realms of the fraudulent for decades. "
What are you talking about?
Hey Glenn!
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 114
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 9:35 pm: | |
Current scorecard shows:
David, an accountant, claiming that psychopaths lack all emotions, can't communicate well and act irrationally.
vs.
Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist Revised and the American Psychiatric Association DSM IV manual, which both say otherwise.
Wonder when David's going to acknowledge that instead of simply claiming that other people don't know what they are talking about...?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 259
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:10 am: | |
All:
Sometimes I find it difficult to fathom why David does what he does or types what he types. Not because it is so very complex and deep that it defies definition and quantification, but simply because it is normally said out of spite, anger or a deep need for attention. Which by definition, means that those actions are done in haste. Making it difficult to comprehend at best and downright 'interesting' at worst.
Which brings me to one of my often wondered aloud questions. Why do we continue to post rebuttals to his obvious plea's for attention? Why is it we continually attempt to correct him or show him the folly of his ways?
Ahh, now there is a tough question. One with a plethora of answers. Some of us do it because we simply do not like him. Most of us, I would chance a guess, do not like people who claim to know much yet prove very little. A commonly shared hate of the "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome in a lot of us perhaps. Then there are factions of us who do not wish to have someone come onto the board and mislead or misinform newer members of group and others who wish only to study the creature that is David Radka.
David:
For someone who has an IQ as high as you claim (5 points away from Professor Einstein) I have to wonder aloud sometimes: Don't you get it? Don't you understand that most of us are laughing at your behavior, big belly style®? Do you and your enormous... intellect fail to comprehend that you are all likelihood inherently incorrect in most of your assumptions (they are assumptions are they not? For if you had proof would you not be laughing all the way to the bank?) because.. well the reasons are almost to numerous to list. Don't you see how foolish you sound when you come on the boards and profess how high your IQ is? Do you not realize that there are probably a few certified, bona-fide, card carrying psychopath's who read these boards and _know_ (like you do, deep down inside) that you are _very_ incorrect when you type some of the things you type about their behavior and motives?
Have a little bit of self respect, man. If your IQ is as high as you claim it is, why do you fail to realize that if you are right, you do not need to 'prove' it in the manner in which you are attempting? Don't you know that thinking you have the answer and actually having the answer are not the same thing? Do I have to get all Yoda on you and repeat the old "Do or do not. There is no try" bit?
You seem to be a religious man. Here's a question for you: Are you familiar with the Christians in Axum? If you are unaware, they claim to have the Ark of the Covenant. This isn't something they run around telling the world. It's something they 'know' to be true. Word got out and they just kinda say 'yep' when people ask about it. They don't spend large amounts of energy 'defending' their claims, nor do they go round telling everyone else who claims to have the ark that they are 'wrong'. Since they believe themselves to posses the Ark, they needn't proved it to anyone else because they 'know' they have it.
Do you see any correlations here? Allow me to provide you with the one I have in mind, summary style: If you had the answer to the riddle, you more than likely would not go round insulting people and defending your answer. If it were correct, the answer would not _need_ defending. It would speak for itself. The odds are that you would post it for all the world to see and be done with it. Like it or not, take it or leave it style. Kinda like how Professor Einstein didn't go around saying "BUT I'M RIGHT AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU NEED TO READ MY SUMMARY ON SPECIAL RELATIVITY. YOU ARE ALSO FAT AND YOUR BREATHE SMELLS".
The very fact that you have spent upwards of what probably adds up to a few megabytes defending yourself and insulting others tells us droves about yourself and your summary. It's almost as if you are trying to convince yourself not us. Those among us who have been around pathological liars (and sometimes small children  ) might recognize this behavior. At this late hour, I can not remember the actual name of the disorder but the gist of if is: They keep doing something or saying something over and over again until they believe it to be true.
It would be nice if you returned a civil response for once. One that did not somehow attack me or my thought process. After all, the only reason I wrote this horribly long post was in the hope that it might make you re-think your thought process and actions a little.
Ahh who am I kidding? You will probably take offense to some or all of this post and instead of taking in proper context, see it as some sort of attack and behave accordingly. If that is the case, then know that you have once again misunderstood.
crix0r
(Message edited by crix0r on May 25, 2004)
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
AP, you're a poet! I loved every word of it.
I'll leave it your capable hands to carry on this match, although I would prefer we'd leave this thread alone; I can't be bothered with Mr Radka anymore, since I fear for my own sanity.
All the best
Hey Peter!!!!
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 7:39 am: | |
I agree that the more we ignore this thread, the less people will post.
Glenn, did you get my e-mail?
Take care |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Peter,
Yes, I did get it -- also the first one (really nice to hear from you again!!!!), and I did send a long reply yesterday, which you obviously didn't get. I have tried to mail it twice now today, se let me know if you've received them. Or else you may have server problems, since things seems to work in my end.
It could be that your server for some reaons won't let my mails through to your e-mail address.
Most server or Internet connection companies have some sort of webmail function (which you can enter via a password) -- it would be possible to collect and read my mails there, if that is the case and if you haven't received them.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 25, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 7:40 pm: | |
Hi AP,
I like your last post ( the Warhol/toilets one ) - I like most of your posts actually, I think sometimes I'd rather meet JtR than you on a bad day.
I'm not sure under what circustances I'd use it but I warn you that I fully intend to copy your post for future reference (with your permission of course).
BTW - you used "bogs" - you a Brit, not that it matters.
My mother and father were British so you could call me British in a sense, well OK I was also born and live in Britain but I wanted to make myself sound a bit more mysterious.
I actually like this thread in a perverse sense, one day I'll go through it and pick out all the good quotes - David has a good turn of phrase in terms of insults; he's actually quite funny sometimes in his replies I'm curious why he bothers really as it's pretty clear he's convincing no-one.
Even Pat Cornwell/Sickert and the Maybrick diarists have their defenders/apologists, crikey even Charles Dodgson, the Elephant Man, the Royal conspiracy, all have been defended from time to time.
With A?R it's a case of a "Billy No Mates" theory, even Natalie doesn't seem to want to fight his corner.
Cheerio,
ian
And the world keeps on turning ...
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 861
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Well I havent much to add.I thoroughly enjoyed David"s summary-lots of food for thought,a fresh look at the whole thing bringing on board a family of Kosminski"s and their relatives that started to flesh them out and bring them to life.
Loved the idea of the psychopathic brother in law
making a scapegoat of poor old demented Aaron.
But I am still not convinced.So I will continue to explore various avenues [remembering the brother-in -law idea!]
Best Wishes Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Thanks Ian
use whatever you like, you don't need my permission... watch out for my agent though, she's forged in Hell's Kitchen.
If you start making money I'd appreciate a bottle of brandy - not French - but seeing I never made money out of my words I don't see anyone else doing that.
I'm only half-Brit, one end East-End, the other end, end of the world... Indian sub-continent.
Anyways, I'm outta this thread now.
Cheers Glenn, glad you enjoyed it. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 9:39 pm: | |
I have been quiet for several weeks now, occasionally going through the posts on this thread out of sheer curiosity to see if Mr. Radka would answer my two minor queries (for I admit they were a bit minor). I had asked why he felt it necessary to copywrite every reply he put down. I also asked if he knew who John Taylor was.
Apparently (perhaps rightly) Mr. Radka decided my two queries were relatively unimportant and decided not to bother to answer them...at least that is what I have concluded, for I have not seen any comment of his directed to answering the questions I asked. If I have missed his response, I appologize, but this particular thread
is so long and involved that I can almost call it a "quilt".
But still my questions were fairly asked. Why bother copywriting your responses, Mr. Radka? Do you really think that you have become so important historically that everything you have written must be protected by copywrite or you will never be able to gather in some kind of financial windfall from your communications? I assure you, if you ever publish a book on the Ripper, based on the thesis that you put down on this website, you will be lucky to clear seventy to one hundred thousand dollars. For none of the Ripper books, even Ms Cornwall's (which had the advantage that she was a popular mystery novelist) has become a best seller of the Stephen King type. If you doubt this, ask people who are not interested in criminal history (and people who you do not discuss Jack the Ripper with) if they know who say Leonard Matters was? I doubt they will say, "Gee he wrote THE MYSTERY OF JACK THE RIPPER in 1948!" More likely they will say,"I don't know." They may even try to pun their way out by saying, "What does it MATTERS?"
Whenever people get into a field, the figures of importance in that field mean more to them than to outsiders. I have slowly developed (I hope) into a writer of essays on criminal history. Several have been tied (in part) to the Ripper, but I have occasionally worked on other subjects. My interest in Ripperology is not to solve who the creep was (a rather dead end problem, if a curious one, as he or she is dead and can't be punished now to the satisfaction of the world of 1888). Rather it is to use Whitechapel as a kind of springboard to examine the trends and events their to illuminate the criminal history of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. I find it more valuable that way. It is also a more fitting monument that way to the five ladies (or more) that the creep killed than concentrating on "unmasking" Jack. It helps give their tragic ends some value and meaning - although it can never take away from the pain and horror those last wretched minutes each had must have been like.
So why bother with the copywriting? Fame? Fortune? What gives here? Do you really think that outside those interested in criminal history anyone gives a rap about whether Donald McCormick's "Pedechencko" theory is true or not? The issue of the Maybrick Diary takes up many columns of discussion (for many reasons). Is the average citizen of the globe more concerned with it or with the escalating problems of global warming or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? None of this is to knock sensible discussion on these issues in Ripperology or Criminal History, but we should keep a sense of balance here.
You actually think that a sociopath or psychopath
(however you classify Jack) would risk everything to leave knick marks and cuts and dismemberment marks on his victims as a "code" for a tailor to follow?! I have been pondering that one for weeks. I keep thinking of the surviving photos of Mary, Annie, Catherine, Liz, and poor Mary Jane, and try to imagine anybody killing those ladies (four of whom were on the street) with the intention of sending a message to a relative as a threat - and a male relative at that...not a female one! George S. Kaufman once summarized his dislike of "message" uplift drama by saying, "If you want a message, use Western Union." Well Western Union was not in England in 1888, but it's British opposite numbers existed. If Jack wanted to threaten a relative he'd take the relative aside and threaten him. It would be far more affective than to mark up the bodies of five victims ( disemboweling several of them)to warn off a cousin by hoping the cousin could read his "tailor" symbols.
I hate to say this, but generally I hate the memory of Jack the Ripper, and your theory has actually made me feel a little sorry for him. The thought of an evil minded creep cutting up women because he has a power urge to do so, or he hates prostitutes (or women for that matter) is one thing. But suddenly to see his evil acts somewhat trivialized into a kind of private morse code in blood makes me sympathize with the creep. One takes vicious killers seriously, and does not reduce them to addle-headed idiots to make them fit one's ideas of special patterns of behavior.
Why copywrite indeed? I really wish you would explain this to the world. Maybe now you will.
Oh, my other question. I only told one other person the answer in a private message last week.
Who was John Taylor?
I wonder if you dismissed it (probably did) or bothered to check into encyclopedias, or books on the Ripper or whatever. Trivial question that.
You might have thought I referred to a leading Jeffersonian political figure and philosopher of the early 19th Century of that name (but I didn't mean him). Nor did I mean the 12th U.S. President
(that was Zachary Taylor) or his son, a distinguished Confederate General and writer (that was Lt. General Richard Taylor), nor the movie stars Robert or Elizabeth Taylor, nor General Maxwell D. Taylor. No this was just plain John Taylor.
Well we have to go back to 1770 London. Society is abuzz with rumors that are circulating. It seems there are these letters being mailed to the newspapers that have some of the most spiteful and funny attacks on King George III, and various political and social leaders of the day. The letters will be published for a period of three years. Then they stop appearing (sound familiar?). They are all signed with the pseudonym "Junius".
The mystery of the author of the "Junius" letters would be the greatest mystery of 18th Century England (again, sound familiar?). It wasn't a murder case, nor a crime (except that libel was always hanging over the author). But nobody could guess who wrote them. Names were thrown up from time to time, out of desperation: William Pitt the Elder, Edmund Burke, Edward Gibbon, almost any person with the social and political connections to make it seem possible that they could have been the author.
Then, in 1816, a book was published called THE IDENTITY OF JUNUS WITH A DISTINGUISHED LIVING CHARACTER ESTABLISHED. It identified a prominent political figure of the time, Sir Philip Francis, as the author. The basis was a study of an 1812 edition of the letters of Junius, but the author double checked by contacting Sir Philip, whose responses were evasive.
Sir Philip Francis died in 1818. Since that 1816 book came out, most 18th Century literary and political historians will say that the most likely candidate for being "Junius" is Sir Philip, but they cannot be 100% sure. In any event, outside those groups, most people don't know who "Junius" was (they probably would think he was a Roman poet, confusing him with "Juvenal".
They would probably be even less sure to know who first named Sir Philip as "Junius" in that 1816 book. It was one John Taylor. Gee, he named the most likely candidate for being the solution to an identity mystery of the century...and nobody but specialists even remember him...something to ponder.
Jeffrey Bloomfield
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 35
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 12:22 am: | |
Hey Glenn,
Everything went through and I believe it was a problem with my e-mailing system. I just sent you three of them, just in case. Two from my regular e-mail address, and one from my other one. So, guess I'll here from you tomorrow or whenever you have a chance.
Take care
Peter |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:57 am: | |
Got them, Peter.
Things seem to work now, hopefully, so we don't have to bother people her on this useless thread with this stuff.
Sent you a reply as usual. Take care, man.
Over and out.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 599
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
Who was John Taylor? You might have thought I referred to a leading Jeffersonian political figure and philosopher of the early 19th Century of that name.
I thought you meant the bloke out of Duran Duran. Perhaps there are hidden subliminal messages which provide the key to the whole Jack the Ripper mystery in "Girls on Film".  |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
1. "David's theory hinges on Aaron Kosminsky being taken into a household due to his mental illness. This is the initial trigger event because it is when JtR has his authority over-ridden by the female. But, as RJ pointed out a while back, Aaron did not suffer his first attack until 1889 or 1890. So, the available evidence actually goes against the theory's premise that Aaron was a convenient scapegoat for the Ripper."
>>According to the AZ, Aaron was born in 1864 or 65, which would make him 23-24 during the Terror. Paranoid schizophrenia, the condition from which he suffered according to the evidence, is a progressive disorder that usually begins at about age 18. That would put the early stages of his condition around 1882-83, not 1889-90 as said above, early enough for him to plausibly be in need of family care as of 1888. The "attacks" spoken of above are events reported by his family, not observations of his condition observed by a medical doctor. Please keep in mind that Aaron's family included both Jack the Ripper himself and possibly others being extorted by him to use Aaron as a proxy, so the information reported by them about Aaron may have been falsified to suit their purposes. That they had purposes in mind concerning Aaron is shown by the identification taking place likely in the spring of 1890 and Aaron's various commitments to workhouses and Colney Hatch also at about these times. Likely, they are reporting "attacks" as happening to back up their commitment or other actions. And indeed they may be right, at least to a degree. The progression of the disorder is known to produce significant visible deteriorations of condition at various times, and these may well have been occurring in 1889-90 and following.
The same thing said another way: If Aaron suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, and if he was having "attacks" of this condition in 1889-90 significant enough to require commitment, then he MUST have been suffering from the disorder at least to a lesser extent before that time.
2. "Remember, David cannot demonstrate Aaron was suffering from his disorder at the time he would have to be in order for his theory to work. He has to make the assumption that Aaron was suffering from schizophrenia before his first recorded attack. David has to change the evidence we have into the evidence he needs."
>>My position is eminently plausible considering the evidence. This criticism is incompetent.
3. "David cannot place Aaron as living in the household. But, nobody has figured out where Aaron was living at that time. So David's theory hinges on the assumption that Aaron moved in to this house in 1888."
>>I wouldn't say so. All I need is for the murderer-to-be and his significant other having some slight conversation to the effect that she would provide some kind of safety-net features for him at some time prior to the Tabram murder. That's all I need, in a nutshell. That could have happened well before or just before the murder. It could have involved Aaron formally moving in or not. She might have merely implied to her significant other that she wouldn't shoo Aaron away if he came to sleep on the stoop. Very little is required here--please don't put words in my mouth or undue restrictions on my theory.
4. "Assumptions are not good things to lay a theoretical foundation upon."
>>If Aaron is in his female family member's household, then NO assumption is required to put him there. He is there because SHE wanted him there, she is his next-of-kin. The male member of the household wouldn't even know Aaron otherwise.
5. "(Note, this kind of assumption has gotten P.Cornwell slammed; can't prove he was in London, so let's just put him there). David, why don't you just put Aaron in France? Oh yah, then the data wouldn't fit your theory. But David, an assumption isn't data; you're making up stuff to make it sound like a fact."
>>I wouldn't think Cornwell needs to prove Sickert was in London, since he did live there for many years. What Cornwell needs to do is disprove he was in France at a certain time key to the murders IF there may be some evidence that he was in France. But there is NO evidence to indicate Aaron WAS NOT somehow involved with a living or maintenance situation with his relatives when I need him to be, and there is conclusive evidence that he DID eventually live under such a situation. Therefore the comparison made with Cornwell's problem with Sickert's location does not fit.
6. "David's theory critically employs that the marks on Eddowes' face are tailoring symbols intended to send a message to Levey. David has recently admitted that the symbols are not universal tailoring symbols but rather are "tailoring symbols the Ripper may have just made up".
>>"Admitted" is a pejorative term here, used to convey a false sense of my somehow having made a concession. I haven't "admitted" or conceded anything. Tailoring symbols by their nature are traditional ad hoc conventionalizations agreed upon shop-by-shop, with little or no formalization or standardization across wide borders.
7. "In otherwords, the marks are not tailoring symbol at all. They are cuts that David has decided are tailoring symbols so that he can attribute a message to them."
>>I think there is good reason to attribute the basic nature of these symbols to the tailoring trade, considering that Whitechapel was loaded with tailors, and that tailoring was a trade that a great number of Jewish immigrants had to resort to in their destitution (even had they been attorneys or bankers where they had come from,) and the management of the Imperial Club has been historically connected to the tailoring trade, and that Jewish Master Tailors were among its members and long-term clientele', and that the Mitre Square murder is related to the Berner Street murder which took place at the International Workingmen's Education Club which included many Jewish working tailors. But if you don't want to think of the marks on Eddowes' face as tailoring symbols, fine. I wouldn't begrudge you. And if you thought of them as some other kind of genera of symbolization, how would that change my interpretation of what they mean in terms of the case evidence? The "You saw me," "I'm, caught, I'm guilty," "Now its our secret" part would still be the same no matter what kind of symbols they were. The evidence and logical oppositions in favor of this interpretation are right in the Duke Street/Mitre Square evidence.
8. "He can then also attribute an intented reciever of that message. And, all he had to do was make up what Eddowes Killer intended when he cut her face."
>>"Make up" is a pejorative term, used here as an ad hominem to disparage me. Please let what I say rest on the evidence for it.
9. "David's theory has JtR very concerned about the public reaction to a play; Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. This is a Victorian era version of "TV made me do it", or "Rock music made me do it". Are David's suspects of an income bracket where going to live theatre would be something they could even afford to do?"
>>As I said in the Summary, what the murderer is primarily going by is the public street reaction to the play--that's why he gets the idea to murder in the streets. He might also have attended the play or heard a rehearsal if working in the theatre--many Whitechaplian immigrants did so. He may have known someone who worked in the theatre who told him about it. He also may have read Stevenson's novella, released previously. The book is short, is about contemporary London, is easy to read, has lots of action, and thus is the sort of thing that could have been passed around by immigrants seeking to brush up their English. As has been documented voluminously, psychopaths are heavily influenced to do what they do by external factors offering what they take as opportunities for them to act to self-aggrandize. A psychopath who would not customarily feel any inclination to steal a car might undergo a major life change immediately upon being confronted with a nice red convertible on a quiet street. This sort of thing happens every day in the town where you live.
10. "The fact that the Ripper is spotted at two murders (I'll include Stride as a Ripper victim since David does; normally I would caution such an assumption) leads to the conclusion that the Ripper wanted to be spotted. This, of course, fails to mention Mrs. Long who appears to have spotted the killer of Annie Chapman. I don't think Mrs. Long was Jewish. Was she allowed to spot him to qualify a female witness?"
>>In the Summary I clearly state that the murderer got the idea to run a racket to collect the reward money as a result of the culmination of the Leather Apron affair at Annie Chapman's inquest. He wanted to set up Aaron to be villianized the same as John Pizer had been. Mrs. Long or Durwood has nothing to do with his exposing himself to Jewish witnesses.
11. "Since the theatre is partly to blame in David's theory, what about GH's toff suspect? He at least looked like he could afford the theatre (almost sounds like he was just back from watching a show too!) Was GH an intended witness too? Was he now qualifying GH, a gentile, in order to prevent gentiles testifying against him because that would Stirr up anarchy (Jews against gentiles, etc?). Why didn't he try and send GH a message? I mean sure, we can say that qualifying GH makes no sense because why would a gentil worry about testifying against a Jewish Ripper?, but hey, in David's theory it doesn't have to because his suspect just has to believe this would work (but he's not delusional remember, because Cleckly tells us psychopaths are not delusional, and it's part of the epistomological centre that JtR is a psychopath and that the "answers" are found in Cleckly, right?)"
>>As I clearly state in the Summary, the setting up of Jewish witnesses was limited to the double event. What the murderer needs is two Jewish witnesses at two different crime scenes to affirmatively permit payment of the reward, so he goes out and does this on one night. This is the meaning of the double event. Hutchinson on the night of Miller's Court has nothing to do with the matter.
12. "Oh yah, and David's theory is a vast improvement over traditional Ripperologists who twist the evidence to fit their theory. Don't forget that part. Actually, I realise I'm being a bit saterical, but in light of David's style of response I don't think I'm being overly harsh."
>>Argumentum ad hominem.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D, Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:35 pm: | |
“…everyone who relies their case on "Anderson's witness" ends up in trouble since we have very little facts to support either of the candidates.”
>>Hardly. There is no non-miraculous way to solve the case apart from Robert Anderson’s statements that he knew the murderer’s identity with certainty. Should comprehensive new evidence miraculously appear, that of course is a different story; but in 110+ years it hasn’t, so it isn’t reasonable to wait for what we cannot expect to get. Thus the only recourse becomes working on what Anderson said to solve the case. This means analyzing it, disassembling and reassembling it, playing with it, putting some mustard and relish on it to see how it may taste; in other words: living with it. The case has remained unsolved on Anderson, for the good reason that it hasn’t been resolved down to any particular suspect who both has characteristics that measure up to what we now know about sexual serial murderers, and for whom evidence is adequate. Paul Begg came close with Aaron Kosminski—he is the most likely to have been Anderson’s suspect by the evidence, but it is very hard to imagine someone like him doing what JtR did. Martin Fido came close with Nathan Kaminsky/David Cohen—certain aspects of the identification are resolved if you want to believe in the name confusion despite the lack of any direct evidence for it, and he’s plausibly an apposite type of person, but since next to nothing is known about him a reason to accept him is lacking. Scott Nelson is closing now with Isaacs Kosminski or another Kosminski relation—key evidentiary elements are satisfactorily explained for the first time with a real trail leading in a certain direction, but to my mind as yet neither the suspect nor anyone around him seems to have done very much that would invite suspicion. These three appeared to me, and I asked myself: Is Ripperology in fact not getting better and better? Somehow, it seems to me, if Anderson is accepted then something is happening here, the answer, the idea if you will, uses these three men to resolve itself for itself, and each is contributing his own distinctions to its generation.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:35 pm: | |
Hi All,
My main criticism of David Radka's "A?R" theory is David's belief in the infallibility in Robert Anderson's personal 'belief' that it was a Jew that done it...if only someone among that "low class" would point him out.
Well, they never did, did they? END OF STORY!
Rosey :-) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
"...264 posts in a short span of time on a scenario without a named suspect is more than enough attention to the theory presented."
>>As I've said before, suspect-based Ripperology is highly suspect. The name is a psychological need for the misbegotten Ripperologist, who seeks to balm his soul in book after expensive book. Why not cut down your bibliographical eros, and think for yourself instead? I did, and just look at the result! I'm just getting warmed up!
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:56 pm: | |
Natalie,
Your integrity and fairmindedness is appreciated, and an inspiration. The Summary isn't going to convince anyone--it is basically designed for exposure and review. When the Thesis is ready, it will be my pleasure to give you a copy if you like. I would also be happy to hear from you by email if you like, and would never give out your email address.
Thanks again,
David
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
I'm glad you didn't take offense at me naming you as a possible supporter of David's theory (I just couldn't resist, as I was grasping for names of any potential supporters).
I know you found it intriguing and I too liked the twists and turns looking at the case from different angles, and I find nothing wrong with that.
If presented in a more intelligible, intellectual and thoughtful way with less emphasis on pure speculation and poo-poo'ing of the need for hard (or any!) evidence it just may have been able to make some headway but as it stands it's just an interesting tale.
I'm often reminded recently of the sketch on Monty Python years ago of Eric Idle, I think, at a job counselling session and wanting to be a lion tamer and coming out convinced a good stepping stone to become a lion tamer was becoming... an accountant.
I'm not quite sure why that sketch pops into my mind ;-)
Cheerio,
ian
I now take my leave from this thread - "and if one green bottle should accidently fall..."
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 862
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Hi David,many thanks for your kind offer which I would very much appreciate when the Thesis is ready.Thanks too for your words.Keep the flag flying!
All the Best Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 864
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Hi Ian,I don"t agree that David"s summary needed to be any more intelligible,intellectual or thoughtful.I do agree that there may not have been sufficient hard evidence but then that was not his claim.
All the Best
Natalie
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 261
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 7:00 pm: | |
*woop* *woop* *woop*
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Jason, where did you get that clip-art (or is it a scanned picture)????
Extremely cool (and would surely come in handy on more than one occasion on this Board...).
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 262
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 11:26 pm: | |
Hi There Glenn -
As much as I would like to take credit for it, I can not. I've been involved in many a nefarious message boards in the past and most of my stuff comes from those golden yesterdays. I do have a few to my credit though.
While I find all of them funny, I get the nagging feeling that they are a little off color for this particular board. If you don't offend easily and can take a joke, I can send a few your way. Just say the word.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
1. "...(You can take) the thimble on Eddowes finger, the two V’s carved into her face, the fact that Chapman's rings were missing and her belongings neatly laid out at her feet, the removal and taking away of Eddowes Kidney, etc,) and theorise until you are blue in the face as to why the killer carried out these actions. Trouble is though that that's all they are, theories, only the killer can enlighten us as to why he took Eddowes kidney, why he cut two V shapes into Eddowes face, why he decided to kill two women in one night. The fact is, since he’s been dead these last hundred years, I don’t think were going to find out either."
>>There is such a thing as anti-intellectualism, though, and I’m on the alert for it concerning the case. As far as the case goes, it is the two-faced monster of empiricism. You exemplify the leftward visage above—only the murderer knows why he did what he did, we can’t know, etc. The rightward face says the same thing in an opposite way—if empirical data can be presented for a position, by gosh it’s true! Publish it! Whenever the mainstream, typical Ripperologist kisses the right face the left promptly bites him, and vice versa, although he remains numb to the process. What’s the answer? The monster is made up of ideas, and can be disarticulated by ideas. We take a rational approach to the case, tying the evidence together in virtue of a critically–determined center.
2. “Let me further demonstrate to you then, the folly of taking the known facts and concocting a story to fit them, oh and then telling the whole world that you David Radka have finally solved the identity of Jack The Ripper. You wrote.
"How would you know which direction he was "heading" in, just by the location of the apron? He could have bounced in 20 different directions in the 40+ minutes before the graffitus appeared, and 20 more before he went home after placing the apron. He wrote the graffitus in the Jewish street market to have an impact on that when it would open shortly. The location does not indicate any direction in which he was "heading." Are you saying that he dallied around the area for 40 minutes, before going home?”
>>No, I’m saying that the appearance of one man he knew (Levy) walking together with two others he didn’t presented him with a situation he hadn’t foreseen. He doesn’t know if Levy is going to mention he knows him to his companions, so if he wants to go ahead and kill the prostitute and still get away with it he needs to do something to address that situation that he hadn’t planned to do. What he decides to do is a graffitus. Since the three Jews together had not been anticipated, he’s got to go and get some chalk, he maybe needs some time to compose the cryptic text in light of the constraints of the situation, he’s got to chose a location and get there, etc. All this takes time, and that is where the 40 minutes goes.
3. “Self preservation doesn’t seem to be one of your suspects finer points, does it? No, I think you will find that most people are of the opinion that P.C. Long missed the piece of apron first time around, and that in all probability the killer made straight for home, after he had murdered Eddowes. That is in an Easterly direction. So what is it to be, straight home. Or walking about (the by now police infected area, for 40 minutes) with Eddowes kidney in his pocket? Which of the above is more likely? Which of the above is reality? Can you detect a slight hole appearing in your theory?”
>>According to psychiatric case histories, despite repeated super-risk activities, psychopaths exhibit uncanny abilities to escape to ruin themselves again. They are like cats with 2,000 lives instead of nine. Therefore analyzing a psychopath in terms of our normal instinct of self-preservation would seem a very paradoxical undertaking. When you tell me of “most people’s opinions” are you talking about the evidence analyzed by a center? If not, then what have these opinions got to do with studying the case? With respect to exactly what the murderer did in those 40 minutes, nobody knows. A huge amount of possibilities may apply. Going home first, scraping around the market for some chalk, offloading the kidney, going to his tailor shop to get tailor’s chalk, hiding in an alley, changing his clothes, etc. Your guess is as good as mine.
4. “No, I don’t suppose you do, but here is the rub, if your theory is destined to become a book, a lot of people will pick at your theory, in the above manner.”
>>Do you refer to the many tributes paid to me on this thread for being the solver of the case? But I sincerely appreciate those!
5. “Secondly, can I ask you a question? Have you really studied all the aspects of this case? I ask this because I think one of the contributors to this thread caught you on the hop regarding the chalk, i.e. where did the killer get the chalk, to write the graffiti in Goulston Street. I don’t think you’d thought this one out, as in your answer to this contributor, you waffled on about the killer roaming about Spitalfields Market looking for chalk. It seemed to me as if your explanation was written hastily, and on the hoof.”
>>You are projecting how you feel onto me, and thinking that is how I feel. You are the one who hasn’t studied all the aspects of the case. You are the one who is getting caught on the hop. You are the waffler. I am quite clear everywhere about the matter of the chalk—he didn’t have it in his pocket when he killed Eddowes, so he had to get it, and it took him 40 minutes, and I don’t know where he got it but it could have been from the market.
6. “Another poster subsequently wrote. “Why didn’t the killer simply take some chalk with him on the night of the murders”, I bet you wished you’d thought of that. Does the fact that the killer slinks about Spitalfields Market, looking for chalk, appear in your full theory? It's got to now hasn't it, you've said as much.”
>>You can be assured I had thought of that, otherwise I wouldn’t have built such a big piece of architecture to account for the 40 minutes!
7. “All in all Mr Radka you want to thank the contributors to this forum, for reading through your summary, and pointing out to you the potential pitfalls in your theory, in order that you can correct them (the pitfalls) by the time your book comes to light. Which is why it was very clever of you to only post your Summary on these messageboards, that way, you can try and plug any holes that are revealed by the contributors to this thread.”
>>I do thank all who point things out to me, and plan to reward those who are particularly helpful. I don’t work with an editor, and am just one guy. Plus, I did the whole Summary in 100% secrecy.
8. “Lastly do you really believe you have solved this case Mr Radka, or are you in it for the money? If your theory is published as a book how many people do you think will believe your story? Surely you are in this for the money.
>>I know that I have solved the case in terms of all rational questions that can be asked about it, up to the limit of evidence that exists today. I wrote the way I feel about money in my Question # 43 as follows:
“…Ripperology socially institutes, venerates, exhibits and glorifies its wealth with its perennial marketability, immense and burgeoning bibliography, documentaries, movies, walking tours, web sites, journals, conventions, museum collections, and by its formidable human resources in the form of serious Ripperologists and their cadres of disciples. (3) The longevity and growth of our Ripperlogical field, and the reward money the pathological man coveted, are one and the same. (4) A solution of the case, then, elicits from us the dynamics of critical judgment; in other words, asking enough good questions about what Ripperology is, why it exists and how it should work, suspending our judgment when indicated, opening doors and becoming free.”
In other words, I wrote to say the truth, and to close and defeat the psychopath’s trap.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 10:52 pm: | |
1. “[Glenn said:]Radka suggests that the Ripper murdered and mutilated for a number of combined, very rational reasons, like getting rid of a domestic problem, blaming the murders on someone else in his closest circuit, to provoke the authorities to put up a large reward he'd soon collect himself etc etc."
>>Maybe Glenn said this, but it is not my position. I am saying that he murdered out of an instability of personality resulting in his seeking attention, to dominate and take advantage of others, to become dominated by others thus ruining himself, to take revenge on his significant other as a mother archetype, as well as to gratify perverse lustful impulses. He was here rational, there irrational in the self-ruinous sense, there lustful. All of which is typically psychopathic, except basically the blood.
“[Radka said:] The only motivation the WM had which may have been adequate to do what he did, and this would merely be an accident on his part or an inconsistency in his inconsistency, was the desire to pursue the reward.”
>>Basically right, but watch out for thinking that having an adequate motivation for once in his life in any way changes a psychopath into no longer being a psychopath. It is true that the reward money, assuming the Home Office kicks in, is an adequate prize for which to risk his life. But if he received this money, he’d be likely to blow it on inadequately motivated trifles.
2. “I seem to have missed the bit where we actually proved the murderer (phsycopath or not) had any interest at all in the reward - the logical opposition to that is... he simply didn't? David you seem to be working with "facts" that you have not shared with any of us?”
>>We know he was interested in the reward for the most part because of the double event combined with the Lusk letter, and these are rational reasons, not empirical facts. The purpose of the double event is to set up two Jewish witnesses he can intimidate into cooperation, and the Lusk letter attempts to rejuvenate George Lusk as a factor in getting the Home Office to post a large reward.
3. “Much the same way as you state almost as fact the idea that the psychopath was after stirring up as much trouble as possible between gentile and Jew - the logical opposition of this is... he didn't.”
>>We know he was interested in stirring up as much trouble as he could because of the location of the two double event murders, the graffitus, the cry “Lipski!”, his plan to extort the reward, and the commission of the Miller’s Court murder on the day of the Lord Mayor’s procession. Again rational, don’t look for concrete empirical evidence of this in the sense of an explanation of his plans left at a crime scene scrawled on the back of an envelope.
4. “Much the same as he was tryiong to blame Aaron, the logical opposition to this is.. he wasn't.”
>>We know he was trying to get Aaron blamed in virtue of the extraordinariness of the identification, the likelihood Aaron was the suspect, the availability of a great reward, his plan to get that reward, Levy’s aversiveness, and so on. The empirical well really runs dry on this one.
5. “Much the same as the "fact" that he left tailoring marks on the victims, the logical opposition of this is... he didn't.”
>>The marks appeared only after the murderer was recognized by someone, and they are fully intelligible to us in virtue of that recognition and the surrounding situation. He did not leave marks at his other crime scenes.
6. “The "fact" that he felt a need to be witnessed by Jews - the logical opposition to this is well, you can guess... he didn't etc, etc, etc...
>>He wanted Jewish witnesses because he felt he could intimidate them to cooperate, as leveraged on the threat of their being blamed for a potential pogrom if they “squealed.” The causality is not “in the data,” it’s “in your mind.”
7. “Are all these aspects covered in the full theory? as it is tedious (and futile) for your audience to fight against a theory they haven't really seen. If so "publish and be damned". It would probably produce a lot less questions as the theory would/should provide detailed answers to most of the questions.”
>>Why wouldn’t I cover them in the Thesis? And I agree, the Summary isn’t enough for anyone to make a final decision.
8. “I'm not sure whether your solution is suppopsed to be fiction or fact - you obviously seem to be trying to put yourself in what you think is JtRs mind, the mind of a pyshcopath, and just inventing any old reason/justificastion/motivation and then saying, if anyone criticises, that it's not expected to be understood by normal people”
>>I never try to read the murderer’s mind. All I do is interpret the evidence according to the center. I am not a mind reader.
9. “a psychopath's actions may not make sense to a normal person
What makes you think your alternative can understand and even guess at a specific psychopaths reasoning and _very_ detailed motivation and yet not expect to be simply cast off as simply guessing or fabricating?
It may be a psychopath's work but I can't understand the "flights of fancy" you are making with inadequate evidence without thinking of icarus (sp).”
>>There is a paradox in working with material about psychopaths, it’s true. In the bald sense, no normal person can imagine how the world looks through the eyes of a psychopath, according to Cleckley, the foremost expert in the field. It is possible to understand though psychoanalysis the deepest fears of the most profoundly disturbed psychotics, and sometimes even possible to rescue them. But the psychopath’s repeated efforts at totally unnecessary self and life ruination despite a complete absence of delusion remain beyond the scope of reason. On the other hand, it is possible to study psychiatric works on the subject and develop what amounts to a working understanding of the psychopathic type. It is then possible to compare this understanding to the case evidence to determine correspondences interpretatively. I don’t seem to have the intellectual neuroses that some on these boards try to hamper me with—I don’t see why I can’t do this. Those who think I can’t are really projecting their own lack of faith in themselves on me, I think. I believe in myself.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Ah, yes, at last. The fig-leaf of your textbookology has suddenly been wisked away...to reveal the true plot. My "RA" theory (to counterpose your budding "A?R", presented to the previous archive, will be your stumbling stone, a rock of offence.
Your central premise being that the man at the centre of the spider's web, (aka. "The Secret Service Theologian"), Mr Robert Anderson had a suspect in mind, and of whom he hints darkly that he had that "solitary vice" (compulsive masturbation), which, when profiled against his racial characteristic (his religious propensity),
can but lead one to the 'righteous', 'godly' and Christian conclusion.
Ergo, it was a Jewish pervert. Then, lo and behold, a alternative ripperologist gives a new twist to this century-old tale. Now, we are instructed to discern the extraordinary truth: simply put, it was one Jewish pervert framing another Jewish pervert!
Is this not a case for that Seaside sleuth, Shylock Homes?
Of course Mr Robert Anderson knew who "Jack the Ripper" was...but he don't HEAR your question.
Rosey:-) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
A short note on strong opinions--
The purveyors of fine empirical schlock like nothing better than to see a certain sort of person coming. There's a little bit of him in all of us, too. He's the type who has formed stong opinions on the case. It just has to be approached in this kind of way, the murderer was certainly after that, the police definitely did or didn't know something, and so on. An opinion is held strongly, however, because it is compulsive, not because it is based on a set of values the person can analyze and articulate. A compulsion is a transitory thing, after awhile the person loses interest, does something else, develops a different compulsion. This leads to the paradoxical situation of the same person holding his opinions strongly, yet changing them frequently. About the only thing that remains the same is the tightness of his grip or the firmly-knit expression on his face, for whatever they may be worth. The present Ripperlogical Fort Knox has been built up on this sort of thing--since we chase after JtR's name above all else and don't know it, we have a compulsion.
As an alternative, let me recommend an open, playful, and questioning attitude toward the evidence. This has prevented me from getting bogged down by excessive empirical commitments. Focus less on who or where or how the murderer had to do one thing or another, and more on over-arching ideas that might explain a segment of the evidence, or all of it. Never leave a Ripperlogical session without all your doors open.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
In speaking about a criminal case, let's not worry too much about 'empirical commitments' (??) Empirical committments? Yikes. What did Shakespeare's bumpkins say? "Let's kill all the lawyers." we can therfore pave the way for two lovely new concepts: Guilt by reason of Psychiatry & Guilt by reason of Philosophy. (Be thankful he only does your taxes, folks).
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
David,
As solving the case goes, you have only interpreted the evidence in your own way, others interpret it completely differently.
Also, I just want to ask something and I really don't mean this in bad way. Why is it that you always 100% use a big word instead of a simple one wherever you can. I'm not a stupid person but I find it difficult to understand you most of the time, I'm sure I'm not the only one. Why use a large word when a smaller and simpler one will do? It cannot just be due to your education as I know many people who went to university and do not speak like you.
No offence meant if I caused any, just wondering.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Hi there, Jason.
Don't worry. I have a very sick sense of humour, believe it or not. Keep 'em coming, if you're up to it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
David Andersen
Police Constable
Username: Davida
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Just one minor point for Jefferey.
Leonard Matters Book 'The Mystery of Jack the Ripper' was published in 1928.
Regards
David |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
1.“The evidence adduced at the Eddowes inquest makes it pretty clear that the Jewish witness was Joseph Lawende, who was able to furnish a description of the man he saw with a woman assumed to be Eddowes. In his sworn statement Levy said he "noticed the man and woman" but did not look at them properly and "passed on without taking any further notice of them." He added that "from what I saw the man might have been three inches taller than the woman." He could not describe them, the spot was badly lighted and he did not take much notice of them. If we are not to accept what witnesses said under oath then we might as well ignore all the evidence and make up our own as we go along (I think that some already do this).”
>>Yes, let us place reverently every single word each witness said on the altar of our thought, and worship it faithfully, that there may be no possibility we may violate the great God Empirical, who grants us everything we have. Let us ask no questions, that we may tell no lies. You speak like you are a man who has profited well from getting hundreds of thousands to practice this mantra. Would you tell a lie to save the British people? If it came down to that—either a lie or al Qaeda pushes the button and England is no more—wouldn’t you do it, even under oath? How are you any different from Joseph Hyam Levy?
2. “One newspaper reporter felt that Levy was "obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest." This was probably because Levy did not like the press pestering him and, like many witnesses, was reluctant to have to appear in a public court. He had also probably been asked by the police not to discuss the matter with the press.”
>>Aren’t you forgetting something? If you’re going to be quoting Levy, why not include all his quotes for the sake of reasonable balance? What about his absurd comment to Harris upon setting foot in Duke Street? Although he could point to nothing amiss concerning the couple, he expressed the feeling that there would be trouble involving them in Mitre Square. Five minutes later, that very man was eviscerating that very woman in that very square. There is something alive in the logical opposition between Levy’s two quotes, taken in the context of the evidence as a whole. But what happens to the context in your treatment? Context and logic are inconvenient for you, I gather.
3. “The conspiracy theorists have grabbed this opportunity to make something out of nothing.”
>>”Conspiracy theorist grabbing…making something out of nothing” is a combination of pejorative terms, cold-bloodedly mobilized here as a code to lead the readers of this web site to consider me an oddball. It is an uncivilized practice. Argumentum ad hominem.
4. “Levy was 'called on the inquest' and appeared two days later and gave his evidence. The fact that Levy took 'no particular notice of them' is confirmed by Detective Inspector McWilliam of the City Police who stated that Lawende "was nearest to the man and woman and saw most of them" and this alone should be enough to deduce that the Jewish witness was indeed Lawende and not Levy.”
>>A statement of desperation, in my opinion. A desperate deduction, with an open logical hole in its side.
5. “The theorists who prefer to discard the official evidence in favour of what one disgruntled reporter (who could not get a story out of Levy) said in an article before Levy gave his inquest evidence, really are 'bending' things to fit their own ideas. So, although we 'don't know who Anderson's witness was', the most reliable evidence available indicates that it was Joseph Lawende.”
>>Here again, you are forgetting the context of Levy’s two quotations, and going by his official testimony only. But the Coroner needn’t have had his antennae up to ask Levy the right questions. Yet another example of monolithic empirical group-thinking, your post overall is a pretty clear illustration of what is wrong with the field presently.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
1.“…one doesn't even need to know who Anderson's witness was to know it wasn't Levy. Let's say it's Schwartz. Could be. Or Violenia. Or Lawende. Or Jewish PC #XYZ . All possible.
>>If you want to say it was a Jewish PC, then show me a PC who was Jewish and assigned to Whitechapel at the time. The entry for Emmanuel Delbast Violenia in the AZ does not mention that he was Jewish.
2. “However, Anderson's own statement (which is not contradicted by Swanson) is that the witness was the only man to have had a good look at the Ripper. The only... Where does the historical record support the possibility that this could be Levy?”
>>Considering that the witness may have been lying to Anderson to identify an innocent man, I wouldn’t make this a decisive consideration. Presumably, Anderson might tell Swanson that he’d established that his witness was the only one who’d had a good view, and Swanson, not having any information to directly contradict the statement, would say nothing. Good may be a relative term.
3. “Two different official reports filed by Swanson (one in October and one in November) state explicitly that Lawende was the important witness that night in Duke Street. Swanson doesn't even bother mentioning the other two men by name (Levy & Harris) dismissing them as being unable to even give the beginnings of a description. But not so with Lawende. His description is wired to the stations and he revisits the case in 1891 (at the same time as Kosminski's appearance) during the investigation of Sadler.”
>>Lawende seemed important at the time, because he didn’t strongly disavow ability to identify the murderer as the other two did. This situation developed into a subset of police officials maintaining an interest in him, and using him for identifications subsequently. Anderson was not a member of this subset.
4. “So if Anderson is referring to Levy, what happens to Lawende? If he were referring to Levy there would have been two witnesses. The two men were standing a few feet away from each other and all indications are that Lawende had the better view.
>>There are no reliable “indications” that Lawende had the better view. Were you there, did you see where each man was focusing his eyes at the time? You are taking the idea that Lawende had the better view as an objective fact, based merely on what was said. Sure Levy SAID he didn’t see the man, but what about his behavior afterward? What happens to the marks on Eddowes face, the graffitus, the Lusk letter, etc? If you meet me on a pathway as I am walking out of the woods, and I tell you I saw a deer back in the woods, do you accept this as being as true as a mathematical equality? Perhaps there are no deer in those woods, or maybe I saw three. Aren’t you blinding yourself to a greater context here?
5. “One could even say that if Levy had refused to testify the Met still could have fallen back on Lawende (or at least made an acknowledgement of his existance in Anderson's statement). "The only.." All speculations aside, I don't see how you can make Anderson's statement (or the record) 'fit' Levy.”
>>Maybe Anderson did use Lawende to try to identify Aaron before or after Levy did. Maybe both Levy and Lawende were at Hove, kept apart from one another. Maybe Lawende took a look at Aaron and was not able to identify him, because it wasn’t Aaron he had seen in Duke Street. Know what happens now? Anderson figures Lawende didn’t get as good a look at the murderer as Levy did, thus he invests Levy with “having had the only good look,” and here we are today. Maybe Anderson also used Schwartz, Harris, Mrs. Durwood, curious George and the tooth fairy at Hove. None of them saw Aaron, so none of them would give a positive identification. This would have convinced Anderson ever the more that only Levy “had a good look” at the murderer, given that Anderson has separate reason for putting faith in Levy. That reason, as I maintain in the Summary, was that Levy had come to Anderson telling him he’d found the murderer in the city, and the man turns out to fit exceptionally Anderson’s “diagnosis” dating back to his briefing by Swanson following his holiday, and then the man’s family including JtR tells or implies to Anderson they have their suspicions, too. So look what we’ve done here, if you will. Haven’t we established a better putative evidentiary basis for Levy as the witness than Lawende? If every case witness but Levy turns up their nose at Aaron, then why wouldn’t Anderson think Levy had the “best look?” I’m not saying it necessarily happened that way, but it is one of the possibilities. Ripperology is a game, and the one who plays best can solve the case.
6. “Let me work a conspiracy theory, though. We know the three Jewish gents were tracked down by the City Police. Swanson tells us this. Let's say they "gave" the Met Lawende, but they held back on Levy, keeping him secret. They wanted the upper-hand over the Met. Then, two or three years or so later Anderson & Co., discover Levy's importance. Could this work? No. unfortunately not; we'd still have the "two witnesses" problem, and it still wouldn't explain why Lawende was being used during the Sadler investigation. But more to the point, Major Smith would have known about Levy and he was openly hostile to Anderson's story of the witness.”
>>Not if Levy walked into the Met and Anderson kept him secret from Smith, the Met having jurisdiction over Aaron’s territory. And there are other possibilities.
7. “Finally, a few years later (1895 I think) it was reported in the Pall Mall Gazette that a police witness was brought in to try and identify Grainger. Philip Sugden speculates this was Lawende. We don't know, of course, if it was the famous Jewish witness. But could it have been Levy? Probablyy not. He disappeared from the trade indexes in 1892. In short, I don't buy Mr. Radka's identification.”
>>Sugden of course is the chief empirical historian of the case. It is no surprise that he monolithically projects Lawende across miles of subsequent identifications, based on what the three Jews said. But now we have more than one way to perceive the case evidence…
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
Thanks David, I did make an error about the date of Matters's book.
Alan, please explain the reference to Duran Duran with some other (more modern) John Taylor. I couldn't understand it.
Jeff |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 2:50 am: | |
David-- a man can rave in Hyde Park in the rain all he wants, and it's really none of my business. But I thought I might point out just one last time the sad, hard fact that Criminal Law is all about good ol' fashioned British Empiricism. And that, of course, is entirely a good thing coz' no criminal case is going to be announced 'solved' unless you can find something to put into your briefcase. Take, for instance, this enjoyable fantasy you weave about the alleged identification by Levy. Not only are you unable to produce any documentation for it ---and not only does it contradict Levy's own sworn testimony--- but the scenerio clearly doesn't even fit the spirit of Anderson's statement. (Rosey already tried to point that out to you)
Let me put it this way. The jury is hearing Anderson complain about the 'curious fact' that 'certain low-class' types don't turn over their own...yet...hey, they're suppose to turn around and believe you when you suggest that Anderson is describing an event where the Jewish chap waltzes into the offices of the Met and delivers Jack the Ripper's head on a platter? It's not credible, it's not consistant, and it doesn't fit the spirit of the statement. Anderson would not have described the 'event' in the mealy-mouthed way that he did if it went down the way you claim.
You're also going to have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better way of dealing with Aaron Kosminski, because you've turned him into a hat rack. It painfully obvious that Anderson, Macnaghten, and Sims were all describing the same suspect. There were 'many circs.' connected with Kosminski--- remember? A hairdresser from Mother Poland in those days was a barber-surgeon. His family worked the night shift which is why Anderson (and Sims) stated that he could come & go when he pleased. So the true & correct perspective is that Kosminski was an established police suspect and the botched identification that Anderson is describing was subsequent to that suspicion. Seen in the correct perspective, your psychopathically harrassed Levy is wanton fanatasy.
"When the man whom we suspected...'
RP.
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Jason,
Love it, just love it.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3105
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Please guys - keep off-topic stuff, joke repsonses, etc. to Pub Talk. All posts in this area get permanently archived, and this thread is already long enough as it is. Thanks.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 4:22 am: | |
Dear RJ,
"the spirit of Anderson's statement" is quite to the point. It is a curious fact that Dr Anderson - a man known to be very careful with his language - leaves posterity but a handful of words on the subject of Jack the Ripper. This handful of words were chosen with much craft... the intended meaning which is implicit in this final judgement on one of the most important criminal investigations of his career is delivered with irony in a cloak of ambiguity.
The institutional "WE" look forward to further
enlightment upon this and other matters, whereas, "I" shall remain deaf to all, on this and other matters.
Rosey :-) |
G. Longman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
The inherent weakness of Mr. Radka's theory is that it is entirely based on an idea developed by Paul Begg at the time of the centenary, i.e. that Anderson's word was the best available and that Levy's 'hesitations and reservations, coupled with his definite acquaintance with Martin Kosminski, have led to the surmise that he might have recognised that man as a relative or connection of Kosminski's and chosen to withhold the evidence.' ('The Jack the Ripper A-Z').
So Mr. Radka's thinking, in that sense is not even original. He has devoted much thought to this idea and has come up with his convoluted and, dare we say, contrived, theory.
His lengthy posts do, unfortunately, require some comment. He states, "The present Ripperological Fort Knox has been built up over this sort of thing." - I didn't even know that there was any sort of 'Ripperological Fort Knox', it appears to me that everyone has their own ideas and theories and are given free reign to publish them either here, in articles or in books. There is no consensus of opinion and it appears quite obvious that the case will never be solved.
He says, "Yes, let us place reverently every single word each witness said on the altar of our thought and worship it faithfully, that there may be no possibility we violate the great God Empirical...Let us ask no questions, that we may tell no lies." - Heaven only knows what that is supposed to mean, for any reading of Ripper material will reveal that just about everyone puts their own interpretation, or spin, on what the witnesses are recorded to have said, usually to suit some theory or other. No one with common sense would ever suggest that everything every witness said was correct. However, the written records of the time are all we have to work with and each should be assessed on its own merits with regard to the circumstances and the other surrounding recorded evidence. Thus, it cannot be in any way compared to the gathering of the evidence of modern witnesses, for the Ripper witnesses are long-dead and beyond further questioning and, in most cases, their character and reliability cannot now be assessed. All we really can do is apply common sense and the most obvious interpretation to what they stated.
So let us look at Levy's other comments that Mr. Radka accuses me of forgetting. Was it really an 'absurd comment'? Let us see.
In evidence Levy stated, "I said when I came out to Mr. Harris, 'Look there, I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about." Questioned by Mr. Crawford Levy added, "There was nothing that I saw about the man and woman which caused me to fear them."
There is a simple answer to this. The man, we know, looked 'rough' and the area was known to be used by casual street prostitutes for picking up late-night clients. Levy, by his own admission, was rarely out that late and the chances are that in the past he had been subjected to verbal abuse by such a couple, that he may have unwisely looked at. Usually having consumed much drink at that time of night, a man, or rough woman for that matter, would shout "What do you think you are looking at", coupled with invectives, to anyone unwise enough to pay attention to them. So while Levy may have been wary of such people for that reason, he wouldn't really be afraid as he was with two companions and the couple in Duke Street obviously paid Levy and his friends no attention. This is a simple and obvious explanation for his statement.
Questioned by a juryman Levy stated that his 'suspicions were not aroused by the two persons.' This, of course, would be in relation to the question as to whether Levy suspected that the man was a murderer with his intended victim. Levy would have no reason to suspect such a thing.
Mr. Radka says, "...he [Levy] expressed the feeling that there would be trouble involving them in Mitre Square. Five minutes later, that very man was eviscerating that very woman in that very square." Mr. Radka must be reading different reference books to me, I cannot find record of any such words by Levy. Or is Mr. Radka 'gilding the lily'?
There again, perhaps my interpretation is a prime example of 'monolithic group thinking.'
Mr. Radka says "There are no reliable indications that Lawende had the better view. Were you there, did you see where each man was focusing his eyes at the time?" No, Mr. Radka, he wasn't there, but then, NEITHER WERE YOU. The interpreation that Lawende had the best view of all is borne out by the surviving contemporary evidence. I'd rather go with that than, like you, dumping it to go for an opposing view built on modern unsupported theorising. By the way, who is Mrs. Durwood?
Mr. Radka gives his whole method of thinking away, he says "Ripperology is a game, and the one who plays best can solve the case". That is true only in the context of convincing yourself that you have solved the case.
As I said, back to the drawing board Mr. 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.
|
|
|
|
