|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:12 pm: |       |
Thanks Stephen.
The degeneration of this thread and the attacks aside, it is still ostensibly a serious one.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 627
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
You know, I hardly think it is appropriate, or even logical to call David an attention whore considering that you keep responding to him.
 |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 265
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Ally -
Glad you could spot the Joke. I could go round and round with you about this, but like Spry said.. we should keep on topic in this thread.
Spry -
I'll keep it in pub talk from now on.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Gregor Samsa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:00 am: | |
"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."
If the above is true - if, of all people, Kosminski's own family would have delivered Aaron's head on a plate to Anderson and at the same time another jew miraculously and of his own free will turns up to tell Anderson he spotted the murderer in the city - why would this same Anderson almost twenty years later so emptically state about the jews in East End:
"..for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice. "
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
"There's no peep out of Swanson in his November report about Levy not being straight forward, and thus there is no evidence whatsoever that Levy was anything other than a good citizen who gave an honest testimony..."
>>Wasn't Levy a City witness?
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 6:25 pm: | |
“But if Levy knew the suspect, why does Anderson write of the witness learning that the suspect was a fellow-Jew?”
>>A rationalist position would hold that there are three separate empirical data points that indicate in combination Levy being the witness, (1) the statement he makes to Harris in Duke Street. (2) his marked close-lipped attitude during the inquest phase, and (3) the instant affirmation of the suspect at Hove. All three are rather odd and improbable. These points may indicate a personality that quickly builds up and then seeks to immediately dissipate psychic pressure. (1) When the three Jews exit the Imperial Club, Levy immediately remarks to Harris that he doesn’t like the look of the couple standing at the head of Church Passage. Levy then clams up and doesn’t say any more. This comes out at the police station when the three are questioned later, and Levy can’t provide any explanation for why he remarked on the couple. Unless the couple were obviously up to something no good, Levy shouldn’t have noticed them. Prostitutes and their Johns were as common as pigeons in Whitechapel, many thousands of women having no other means to survive. Levy was a middle-aged man who’d made the rounds and seen everything many times before. Eddowes and her customer would occasion no second look, thus Levy’s interjection is an absurdity. It is like someone walking out into the street at noon, looking up, and exclaiming “By Jove! The sky is blue!” He remarks without having any reason to remark in the context of those three men walking down that street. The upshot is that he is blurting out to relieve psychic pressure, the pressure having quickly built up when he saw someone he knew, possibly a troublemaker, who makes a dangerous combination with a prostitute. Levy apparently has a kind of premonition that there is going to be trouble. (2) Considering that Levy may be a blurter, his extremely close-lipped attitude toward reporters afterward is understandable. This is how a blurter would try to hold himself back from blurting. If he were hiding something, his inner psychic pressure would be high, and he’d know himself to be in danger of saying, “Yes! I know the man we saw in Duke Street! He’s married to one of my cousins! --Or something like that. He’d perhaps need to put duct tape over his mouth to hold himself back. (3) Notice that the witness blurts immediately when confronted with the suspect at the identification. One would think that if a Jew didn’t want to testify against a fellow Jew, he’d size the man up before saying anything when confronted with him. But this witness first blurts his affirmation, next disavows testimony. It looks like a repetition of Duke Street, when Levy says too much quickly, then has to retrace his steps to save himself later. This is at least a prima facie rational case that Levy knew the man in Duke Street, and was Anderson’s witness.
Obviously, if Levy knows the suspect, he’s not going to tell Anderson! Since Anderson doesn’t know he knows the suspect, he doesn’t know he knows he’s a Jew, either. Levy is operating on this assumption in how he reacts at the identification.
Maybe this unusual way of identifying had a method to it. Maybe the witness wanted to identify but not testify, and needed a plausible pretext to keep Anderson from supposing anything like perhaps some kind of connection between the two, hence the quick blurting/denying.
I am of the school that matters transpired one following the other concerning the identification, and that while Levy had the opportunity to steer events to some extent, basically he was reacting to unknowns as they occurred as well. I think that Levy likely approached Anderson and told him he’d found the murderer, but began waffling when Anderson suggested getting him involved in police procedures, hoping to steer Anderson as best he could. Hence Anderson came up with the Hove idea to initially quiet Levy and ease his concerns with participating, and also to see what pressures he could bring on him to go further. I feel Levy’s reaction when confronted with Aaron was thus part method on his part, part his typical blurting tendency.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 10:01 pm: | |
1. “If I bang the word "lust murderer in you head repeatedly, is because you always seem to elude that point, forcing me to repeat it. However, point taken, if you haven't got it by now, you never will anyway. I don't force you to respond and to waste your valuable time.”
>>I’ve not eluded your point; I simply don’t accept your mental compulsions of the hour. My position on what kind of murderer JtR was has been made clear, and that includes a lustful component. See many others of my posts.
2. “Still, what you can't escape from, is that if you suggest a possible similarity with the marks and symbols originating from, let's say, tailoring, you must be able to show it and present sufficient examples to illustrate your claim. Once again, with your approach one can claim absolutely anything.
>>Firstly, please don’t think of the tailoring symbols disjointedly. Many things are connected. They appeared after the witnesses emerged from the Imperial Club, which had tailoring connections. Many tailors worked in Whitechapel, including several at the International Workingmen’s Education Club. Next, it would be easy to establish that very simple marks like two-stroke arrows and the separated horizontal and perpendicular are used in tailoring. The same with the other symbols. They are so simple as to be virtually self-explanatory. We’re talking about simple geometric conveniences that have pretty obvious meanings in the trade. Third, you don’t even need to accept them as tailoring symbols to get the murderer’s meaning, if you are willing to take them in context. I am not claiming “absolutely anything” in my work, I am following the evidence.
3. “Furthermore, your reasoning here is based on the fact that the marks were some sort of communication. But what if they weren't? What is your explanation B? If you could present such examples I referred to, you may have had the opportunity to actually point at interesting evidence. Now it's just leading nowhere besides any other speculative theories.”
>>You’ve got the basic idea of my work exactly upside down in your head. What I say about the symbols on Eddowes face, the graffitus, the Lusk letter or whatever else totally depends on my ability to link all I say together reasonably as a whole. It’s not going to be “interesting evidence” taken one point at a time. It’s not going to be ANYTHING taken one point at a time. I do not think like a technocrat like you, I think like a philosopher.
4. “I don't doubt for a moment that you're a bright fellow. But subjective interpretation is not OK if that is all there is. That is why Richard has being critizised for the 39 theory and the grave spitting incident, as well as Cornwell being hacked on for her questionable "links" to JtR from Sickert's paintings. Your very crude distortions of the facts and - I must admit - quite innovative elaborations are no different.”
>>The only theories I know about above are Cornwell. I think her interpretations of the paintings would have some value if she could in some way link Sickert to the crimes, which she cannot. She has a Grand Canyon of distance between her view of Sickert and the case evidence. Sure there is an element of subjectivity in how I analyze a given position, the graffitus, for example. But I’m not bucking to get that analysis accepted by anyone simply on its own merits. The acceptance or rejection of my work can only be based on whether or not the whole of it is accepted. How many times do I have to repeat this?
5. “If you want to avoid this criticism, all you have to do is to do what any academic institution would force you to do, namely to study different kinds of sources and put them against each other as you discuss them. This is simple source criticism on its most basic level. You only refer to Cleckley in your summary as your main source. How credible is that?”
>>I refer to Hare and Lykken as well in the Summary. But that’s just the Summary—the Thesis has more sources. Not that I believe in a big bibliography for Ripperlogical theories—the more minimal the better, in my opinion. This is because Ripperology’s bibliography is both enormous and futile; we need thoughtful exegesis of the right sources and original thinking today, and not so much “research.”
6. “Finally, if you seriously think that the philosophical and psychological academic world is better on solving crimes than the police on the field or the criminologists, you really need to get out of your chamber. Your textbooks are strangling you, Radka - you just don't know it yet.”
>>Ripperology has little or nothing to do with crime solving—you are merely compulsively determined to think it does. Trying to catch an active serial killer is crime solving, but this case is 116 years old, and all we have is written materials to analyze. So this has to do with reading, thinking, and logic.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 6:13 am: | |
David,
We get your point ok. We disagree with some of what you say, that is all.
Also I'm quite happy for you to interpret ripperology however you like but does it really have anything to do with proving your suspect did it.
Granted, you have used reading thinking and logic in your deductions - this DOES NOT make you correct!
If your not here to solve it (as you say it can't be done) then why are you saying you have?
Listen, I think your theory is quite good but that does not mean you can insult us all!
Copyright Jennifer D. Pegg, 2004.
Jennifer |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 11:04 pm: | |
A remarkable trend here. Mr. Radka's second from last comment was not copywrited! Keep it up sir!
Jeffrey Bloomfield |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 11:23 pm: | |
And speaking of which...
>>Wasn't Levy a City witness?
Yes, but not particularly relevant, I think. "Inspector Swanson and I meet daily and confer" --James McWilliam, head of Detective Department, City of London Police, report to Home Office, dated 29 October, 1888.
I don't see a lack of communication between the City & the Met. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
"You know, I hardly think it is appropriate, or even logical to call David an attention whore considering that you keep responding to him."
>>Exactly right, Ally. Thank you.
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
1.“I see you have responded to my question concerning the problems presented by Cleckley's failure to study murderers, let alone sexual serial lust killers. It seems you are now resorting to insults when you cannot answer a valid question. I note that many of your answers to others are merely insults dealing with our collective failure to 'understand' your sources. You state, "This is a serious incompetence (sic) with respect to understanding and maintaining distinctions" Do you think you are conversing with idiots? Do you think people cannot see through you when you resort to circuitous and incoherent answers such as the above.”
>>Why don’t we take a little peek at the full question and response in question here?: >>>"Just to clarify your posts above, no-one Cleckley studied was a serial sexual or lust murderer or, for that matter, even a murderer. Further, you admit you cannot point to a single case in the history of serial sexual or lust murders which involved even so much as a similar type of killer as you propose for your identification of JTR in terms of motivation and behavior. Therefore, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Ripper murders were perpetrated by an individual unlike any who has ever been identified or studied. Thus, the JTR murders can only be understood by accepting that you are the only one who has, as yet, been capable of relating the garden variety psychopath with his sexually motivated serial killing brethren. Interesting!"
>>This is a serious incompetence with respect to understanding and maintaining distinctions. The only difference between the psychopaths Cleckley studied and Jack the Ripper was, perhaps even a passing, taste for blood. I have a taste for seafood, my cousin doesn't--does that in itself make her terribly different from me? Keep in mind that for a psychopath killing a human being has no greater emotional component than slicing an orange. He can very easily move from not being a SSK to being one given the appearance of a minor catalyst in his life. I am getting tired of this oft-repeated refrain that I've completely or even intentionally misread my sources. You folks ought to bone up on what I'm discussing before you try to cut me down.<<<
What is wrong or “circuitous” with respect to my response to this question? I feel I’ve been quite clear that the chief distinction that needs to be made for studying the Whitechapel murders is that between psychopathy and other kinds of psychiatric disorders. It is by maintaining this distinction that we get closest to the murderer and his inadequate motivations right from the start; because we start right, we give ourselves an even playing field on which to make further interpretations and distinctions—we avoid having to crawl out of a deep starting hole, loaded with conflations and misdirections, as other theorists need to do (examples: the Littlechild letter, the Diary, “lust murderer,” etc.) With respect to Cleckley “failing” to study serial murderers, there is no fundamental difference among psychopaths.
Please consider the following from Cleckley: “(The) psychopath engages in behavior so unlike that of others and so typical of his disorder that no act can be reported of a patient from Oregon seen ten years ago without strongly suggesting similar acts by hundreds of psychopaths carried out in dozens of communities last Saturday night...This disorder is so common that no one need feel that any specific act of a psychopath is likely to be distinguishable from acts carried out by hundreds of others.” (Hervey Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity”, pp. 23-24)
What Cleckley is saying is that a psychopathic murderer murders like a psychopath, and this is very similar to a psychopathic swindler swindling like a psychopath. But it seems when I accept this position it is so Ripperlogically heretical that no explanation avails to get my readers to even understand that I can possibly be taking what seems to them such a crazy position. It seems many on this thread are so antecedently convinced that a “murder” animal or a “lust murder” animal exists psychiatrically, that what I’m doing in the simplest sense passes right through them, like radio waves, with no effect on them. Thus they holler back at me that I’m being “circuitous,” “evasive,” etc. I’m not. What I’m doing is following the evidence. With respect to other posters’ “collective failure to ‘understand’ my sources,” you’re darn tootin’ they haven’t made an effort to understand. What I’ve read from several of them indicates a pernicious laziness on this count. It seems to me that some are so anxious to join the rape gang assailing me that there is no chance for an educated dialogue with them.
2. “In 1941 Cleckley may have been spouting forth pearls of infinite wisdom with regard to the psychopathic condition. Nevertheless, I wonder if I am the only one who finds that 63 year old texts present a myriad of problems when used to buttress an argument which should deal with our present knowledge of the aforementioned type of killer. I was obviously under the misapprehension that you were above such tactics as you have displayed in certain of your 'responses'.
>>Cleckley issued five editions of “The Mask of Sanity,” the latest dated 1988, before he died. You are foolish to talk of 63 year old texts here—anybody can get a copy to disprove you easily. I was obviously under the misapprehension that you were above such tactics.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 128
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
Yes, David, but simply releasing a new edition of the book doesn't mean that the research in it isn't outdated. If you'd stop lashing out at people and think about what you are saying you'd realize this.
Not to mention that all modern professional references on psychopaths contradict the key points of your theory. Why do you keep ignoring that?
By the way, David, by international treaties, authors have automatic copyright protection on the text they write as soon as they put it into a form others can see, including posts here. Placing a separate copyright notice on each of your posts is a totally pointless exercise.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
“…But just because David's theory is highly imaginative and entertaining as a story does not mean it is a sound interpretation of the historical events. He has insulted and criticised nearly everyone who have made suggestions in the past, claiming they fit the evidence to their theory. He has claimed this is the sin of "traditional Ripperology" and it's why the case has not been solved in the past. He accuses anyone who dares to disagree with him as being egotistical, or intellectually void, or whatever, in order to close his post with "I won't waste my time in responding anymore". This is the biggest joke, because the use of anymore implies that he actually responded to the content of the post in the first place. So, if people are being a bit harsh in how they address David it's because this is how David has treated everyone else in the past. As ye sow, so shall ye reap, as the saying goes.”
>>Argumentum ad hominem.
Generally speaking, the above seems to have been written with an amalgamation of posters the writer doesn’t like in mind. I certainly haven’t insulted everyone, charged them with fitting the evidence to their theory, and I have never closed a post with “I won’t waste my time responding anymore” to my memory. The writer is attempting what is called a “swish pan,” in which he runs a load of baloney by you real fast and then puts a label on it, hoping the label gets attached in your mind.
Perhaps the writer would like to discuss the real implications of my theory sometime.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
This is the first of a two-part post.
1. “Even before we get to your interpretatin of the word Juwes, [your explanation of the graffitus is] already full of logical holes. If the message is such that it is not recognisable as a threat, then it's not recognisable as a threat regardless of whether a or b are true. Your "psychopathic killer" has to think his "abilities" are such that he can send a message that is an understandable threat if Levy identified him and if Levy also told his friends that he identified him, while simultaneously they won't understand the threat if either Levy did not identify him or if Levy did not tell his friends.”
>>“The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing” is quite recognizable as a threat without much of any interpretation. Merely syntactically it points to a future time when there will be a reason to blame Jews for something. The question is thus not that it may be a threat, but exactly what the threat may be and to whom it may be directed. Such graffitus was common in Whitechapel, but given that the half-apron is placed underneath it and that the murder in Mitre Square has just taken place, and given that the three Jewish men passed by the murderer and his victim just prior to it, then a relationship of the graffitus to the three Jewish men must be considered by them if they develop the presence of mind to consider the murder and their place in it (and this would include Schwartz and the Pipe man too by extension.) Are you with me? We have hardly begun to interpret the text, and we’re already well along toward establishing the three Jews as the target of the communication. They wouldn’t need to be textually brilliant to pick up the murderer’s meaning; they’d just need to put two and two together. If they don’t develop the presence of mind to think, then the text is vague enough to not provide them such presence of mind in and of itself (indeed it is vague enough that nobody had the presence of mind in 116 years to so consider it until I did.) Now see #2 below.
2. “The ability to understand a written message, however, is unconnected to the act of identifying a person.”
>>Huh? If the three Jews start thinking, they have to understand that the murderer wrote the message and they may be the targets of it right there. Then, they’d have to consider their place in the message in terms of the anti-Semitic riots going on as the murderer planned. The message would be quite clear: shut up or you’ll be sucked into the conflict as culpable parties. What does “identifying a person” necessarily have to do with it? You seem to forget that these men were living their lives when this was happening, that they’d be going on what they saw, that they’d have to think of what they should do next, and that they’d be capable of being intimidated, just like us today. You think of them in the sense of two dimensional paper cutouts without the ability to formulate perceptions of their own, typical of the historical-empiricist school.
3. “So you are once again describing someone with delusional thinking patterns. You're "epistemological center", or the centre of knowledge, or the fundamental premise of your whole theory, is that the killer is a psychopath. You have repeatedly pointed out that a psychopath, by your definition, is not delusional. Therefore, because your interpretation of what the killer is thinking at the time of the writing requires a delusional thinking pattern, your theory contradicts itself at this point. Not surprising. Your insistance that a psychopath believes he can do this is a demonstration that you do not understand the difference between "over confidence" and "delusional" thinking.”
>>Cleckley fundamentally refutes your position regarding psychopathy, as follows: “…The psychopath has a concealed but very real and grave pathology. Unlike other types of masked psychosis, the central personality ‘lesions’ of the psychopath are not covered over by peripheral or surface functioning suggestive of some eccentricity or peculiarity of personality but by a perfect mask of genuine sanity, a flawless surface indicative in every respect of robust mental health.” (Hervey Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity”, page 253.) As Cleckley says, in the psychopath we behold madness in excelsis without delusions. The subject may be as pathologically disturbed, as mad or madder than a severe psychotic, yet have no delusions whatever. This is because psychopathy is not pathology of the mind, but of a mis-developed personality structure. What has “gone wrong” with the psychopath is not in his thinking, but in his personal identity. It is not that what he thinks is wrong, but that what he conceives himself to personally be is wrong. It is not that he thinks impossible thoughts contrary to the real state of affairs, but that he conceives himself personally capable of doing impossible things. He is, in short, an impossible person from the very ground up, albeit he hasn’t got a clue of this himself. Thinking is the bottom line of sanity in the case of psychotics, schizophrenics, etc. Personality development is the bottom line in the case of psychopathy. In short, the psychopath’s personality, developed in childhood syndromatically in a defective manner, is not dynamically capable of providing the subject any remotely adequate concept of what reality is insofar as he can ever be personally concerned with it, albeit it produces no effect on his thinking mind. I can assure you that I indeed understand the difference between overconfidence and delusional thinking; I take them straight from Cleckley. You ought to crack his book yourself someday.
4. “You claim Juwe is a contraction of the German "Jugendwerk", a term for a sunday school student (child). I have never heard of this, and unless you can demonstrate that this is a valid contraction (show me where it's used as such), I'm going to go with the more probable notion that this is like your tailoring marks. You're really saying that Juwe was used by the killer as their own particular made up contraction for the german word. The latter demonstrates how you are not fitting the theory to the facts, but rather you are making up facts to fit your story. 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).”
>>If you don’t want to accept Juwe as a contraction of jugendwerk, fine. I wouldn’t begrudge you. Perhaps it had another meaning for the psychopath, or was just a misspelling. Perhaps it meant for him something like “your” or “you” in the old German sense, in which case we’d interpret it as having particular relevance to the three Jews, as it focuses on them very directly, like the classic American military recruitment poster where Uncle Sam points to the beholder and says “I Want YOU!” However we interpret Juwe, please understand the interpretation of the graffitus remains the same. It is an attempt to intimidate the three Jews who saw the couple in Duke Street into not giving information to the police, under penalty of reprisals from the Jewish community.
5. “Regardless, if we continue with the idea that Juwe is a contraction (real or imaginary doesn't matter anymore - let's just accept your idea that it is one) meaning "sunday school student", then basically the idea is that by writing, in translation, the statement "The sunday school children are not the men who will be blamed for nothing", the killer believes this message will be clearly understood by 3 adult Jewish men as a threat against their well being if they go to the police and identify the man they saw with Eddowes. Again, a clear example of a delusional thinker, which again contradicts your central premise of a non-delusional thinking killer. So again, your theory is contradicting itself.”
>>The psychopath believes that getting the three Jews to make this interpretation is something he can do by writing the graffitus where he wrote it and by including the half-apron with it. That other men couldn’t accomplish that same result because of the real wackiness of the whole undertaking is nothing more than further proof to him of his high caliber as a man, and ever the more reason, as far as he is concerned, to deviate from the rules and regulations constraining normal human behavior to show himself triumphantly superior to and immune from them.
6. “Lipski: I have no problem with your interpretation of Lipski when used by gentiles. Here, you're basically repeating what has been said before, and generally is accepted. You've offered, without proof of course, that it was also used by Jews. Without proof, though, it's just something you've made up, again, twisting facts to fit the theory is a no-no David. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the philosophy of science.”
>>We’re not talking about science here; we’re talking about irony. Irony is implicit in language, and in every meaningful verbal exchange. It is omnipresent everywhere there are human beings. If the Gentiles were really doing a number on the Jews in Whitechapel with this “Lipski!” taunt, don’t you think the Jews would develop an ironical equivalent? Wouldn’t they want to mobilize that linguistic power being used against them, to use in their own interests somehow? After all, it must have seemed ironical to Jewish people that they would be labeled after the poison-murderer Israel Lipski when in fact they were not poison-murderers themselves. When you allege that the Jews didn’t have an ironical equivalent for the Gentile taunt “Lipski!” what you are essentially saying is that the Jews are a people incapable of irony. The meaning of any term can be reversed or otherwise turned ironically in usage. Here again, maybe the ironical form was not in frequent use, maybe the psychopath is to some extent over-twisting usage in Berner Street, but how does that alter the fact that irony applies to human life, or to the situation of the Jews of Whitechapel? Here again, the psychopath may be showing himself immune to the rules and regulations of ordinary human discourse in his ironical, reversed use of this term. The psychopath may have been employing any of variety of wacky ironical equivalents at the time. He may have been asking Schwartz and the Pipe man to ironically envision him as a Gentile for that one moment, thus to conceive of the meaning of his cry “Lipski!” as a taunt against them by a Gentile for being bad Jews, and thus in context that they should avoid being bad Jews by not acting against the interests of the Jewish people by giving information to the police, in the sense of Israel Lipski as having been a bad Jew. Always keep in mind the ultimate position of Lipski was discomfiture by the Jewish population for bringing disrepute on them. Again, this would be a near-impossible communication thought eminently reasonable by a pathological person acting in his own misguided interests.
7. “the Lusk letter: if a theory gives a critical role to any of the letters the theory is on very shaky legs. However, the Lusk letter is probably the safest if you want to take a gamble. You must acknowledge that because you are building on the "assumption the letter is genuine", then you cannot say you have the only possible solution - meaning you cannot support the claim that you have solved the case to a singular solution.”
>>The reason why Ripperologists have considered the Lusk letter shaky is because of an absence of any compelling reason to consider it genuine. Empirical science doesn’t have a means to either prove or disprove it, hence the prior shakiness, but I have a firm rational reason to accept it: the psychopath as a part of his extortion project used it. I do not “assume the letter is genuine,” I reasonably interpret it so because I can show that its purpose was part of a project on the part of the psychopath, in turn based on a reasonable holism of all the case evidence. Empiricism has strangled Ripperology.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
1. “I am afraid that for Mr. Nelson's theorising to work he requires much 'bending' of Anderson's words, and the facts for that matter. The police evidence adduced at the Eddowes inquest clearly shows that Lawende was the only near-decent witness of the three, and the only one able to supply a physical description of the suspect and his face.”
>>This all means nothing if Levy were lying. That Levy was not lying is not a “fact.” You are pouncing on a simplistic interpretation of the evidence to support what you want to be true, but many points are disputable.
2. “Mr. Linford, of course, makes an excellent point in saying that Anderson claimed that "when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, he declined to swear to him". Given Mr. Radka's scenario he would have already known that the suspect was a Jew.”
>>Not necessarily. Anderson may have taken Levy to Hove to see what he could get out of a waffling, only partially willing witness. Levy need not have told him the man was Jewish to start, he may have only expressed a general reluctance to get involved with police procedures.
3. “It is obvious that both Mr. Radka and Mr. Nelson rely heavily on subjective interpretations made of the whole Polish Jew theory by certain authors in the past. They would have us believe that only Anderson and Swanson knew of the identification while other senior Metropolitan police officers, such as Macnaghten, did not. Such an idea is untenable. Given the amount of other people who would necessarily be involved in, and aware of, any identification there is no way it could be kept secret. The whole scenario smacks of a novel.”
>>Some people have unique subjective qualities to offer in logical analysis. What’s wrong with that? It doesn’t necessarily mean the interpretation is wholly subjective in nature. I feel that both Mr. Nelson and I are well aware that whatever we say rests on the evidence of the case. Neither McNaghten nor Swanson wrote down even the salient points of the identification, indicating they possibly didn’t know the whole story. The remainder could have been kept secret from them. Someone in Anderson’s position could well have imposed a degree of secrecy on the matter, which happened outside the police station. The whole scenario of Ripperology smacks of self-serving empirical schlock.
4. “Despite Mr. Nelson's protestations about Lawende having 'only glanced at the man', he DID give a description and the evidence clearly shows that Levy was unable to give one. No known witness is recorded as having had "good view of the murderer" and, indeed, how could anyone merely seen with a victim, before the murder was committed, be the murderer anyway? He would have to be actually seen murdering the woman to be the actual killer. No, the more you read of Anderson, the more cause you have to doubt his word.”
>>This is your basic sophomoric self-serving dissociation of meaning in five parts. The whole thing is mere opinion.
5. “The fact that Lawende was used in an attempted identification of Sadler as Jack the Ripper a week after Aaron Kosminski had been locked up (that's assuming that Aaron was the 'Kosminski' referred to by Swanson) shows that Lawende was indeed the police witness. Also the mere fact that the police clearly believed that Sadler could be the Ripper also militates against the Kosminski theory.”
>>I believe what Lawende’s putative use as a witness for Sadler would mean would be that he WASN’T Anderson’s witness, not that he was! Remember, Anderson accepts the identification, “no doubt whatever.” If Lawende identifies Kosminski as the Ripper, why would they later use him to identify Sadler? How many Rippers were there? If Lawende was used for Sadler after Kosminski was identified, clearly this means that the Met was split—a faction accepts Hove and has its reasons for doing so, another doesn’t or perhaps isn’t in the closed secrecy loop.
6. “Mr. Nelson says, "Or did Levy have the better view of the suspect, possibly instantly recognising the man?" This sort of rhetorical question is a favourite ploy of the Kosminski-based theorists and simply flies against the facts revealed at the Eddowes inquest. Indeed, to believe it you have to accept that the official police reports on the Jews' sighting are wrong AND that Levy lied at the inquest.
>>You speak as if Mr. Nelson is suggesting that Levy was lying right off the top of his head. But Scott isn’t. There are evidentiary points in favor of this proposition. No “facts” concerning who saw what were “revealed at the Eddowes inquest,” only mere opinions stated. You ought to have the Eddowes inquest proceedings bronzed, and hung over your bed, you love them so.
7. “Mr. Nelson then quotes Paul Begg who found it too much of a coincidence that Levy knew "a Kosminski". Well, Kosminski was not that uncommon a name and Martin Kosminski was totally unrelated to Aaron. Martin Kosminski was a prominent businessman and would have been known to literally hundreds of his fellow Jews. Not so Aaron.”
>>If you personally doubt the coincidence, then don’t accept it. But don’t turn your mind off at that point, either. You’ve still got Levy’s behavior, the marks on Eddowes face, and the graffitus to go on for establishing a connection between Levy and the murderer. A day will come when the field won’t let you play your zero sum empirical game anymore—you’ll be required to explain all the evidence.
8. “Mr. Nelson's theorising is riddled with 'ifs' and rhetorical questions and is sadly lacking any sort of fact to support it. The idea of 'another witness' is actually not indicated at all by the surviving police reports. What is actually in doubt is that there was any such attempted identification, as described by Anderson, at all. A witness in a murder case would not be allowed to "refuse to swear", he would simply be subpoenaed.”
>>Now here you’re saying that Sir Robert Anderson was an arrant liar, a huge statement to make requiring major empirical justification on your part. You would have to show a clear pattern of severe character flaws in the man to do that, but you can’t. Based on his work biography he was somewhat opportunistic concerning back room dealings, in order to gain what he considered a greater justice in some cases, and he did consider himself a bit of a privileged or entitled insider in this regard, but that is a far cry from being dishonest or unwholesomely egotistical. I find nothing in Anderson or Swanson, for that matter, to indicate they could have conceived a phony identification to do nothing more than serve them in retirement. Concerning the lack of subpoena, how would the testimony of a single witness who merely saw the suspect with the victim prior to the murder avail? A Duke Street witness wouldn’t have seen him attack her. Apparently there was no hard evidence. The suspect was completely insane in any case. So what good would a subpoena do? The witness might lie about his affirmation even if subpoenaed, the suspect would wind up in the asylum and off the streets anyway, nothing would likely change. Additionally, Anderson may have been conceding the witness and/or the suspect’s family consideration in the form of secrecy if they cooperated toward giving him the level of confidence he needed to believe that the suspect was JtR, and therefore that he (Anderson) was getting the greater justice done in the special provisions he allowed them. Anderson was the quintessential back room justice maker, this evidence for this is all through his biography, perhaps he even exceeded his usual quotient in this case, and the witness and the family effectively chopped him off at the legs. Mr. Nelson’s theorizing is not to be criticized for being “riddled with if’s and rhetorical questions.” Scott lets all his work rest on the evidence. Asking questions is the lifeblood of knowledge, and he is among the very few who pursue truth in Ripperology, not merely data. In Scott’s questions, Ripperology is alive.
9. “The Polish Jew theory is just that, another theory. It is the shaky peg on which Mr. Radka hangs his claimed solution to the case. Mr. Radka's theory is just another variation of an old theme. Put your cigars on ice Mr. Radka.”
>>Certainly I’m no practitioner of the old, partially formed Polish Jew theories, noted for being inconclusive. Mine starts with the Leather Apron affair, shows the murderer’s efforts to get the reward money, explains his actions in accord with the evidence, avoids circumstantial speculations, and closes the matter.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
“Those who approach this from a background in psychology will always want to keep things general; those whose background is in history will always be concerned precisely with what you call pedestrian--the statements McWilliam wrote at the City in 1888 or what Swanson scribbled in 1911 or what was going on with the Evening News when they reported that Levy was hiding something. These details are the life-blood of the case. David would be naive to think his theory wouldn't stand or fall based on 'pedestrian' stuff' or what he sometimes seems to believe are nearly empirical afterthoughts. To state otherwise is a bit like saying 'don't let facts stand in the way of a good story.'”
>>This good post illustrates the two opposing camps of Ripperology—the empirical and the psychological. Following the work of Richard Whittington-Egan, the field accelerated into becoming largely an historical/empiricist club, and no author challenged the powers that were. The audience, the publishers, the authors, and the journalists all realized that historical objectivity and detail was the way to be taken seriously, and the pendulum swung far to the right. It even became possible to play both sides of the street at once—you could both write one book that presented nothing but the facts germane to the case, and also write another book that presented a solution based 100% on facts, albeit facts unrelated to the case evidence. You were “on the cutting edge” either way. In other words, a funny thing happened on the way to the solution of the case made possible by the many new books being published—historical became empirical, and the “facts” became the touchstone for both good and evil, for both reliable reference and crankery. Unfortunately, no net improvement in Ripperology took place as a result of what RWE wrote, the “life blood” of the field dried in its veins, and now almost everybody believes that the solution, if it ever comes, will be in the general form of a Diary found in an attic or some other missing empirical piece.
So, it seems what the field needs is an alternative, a leavening of the detailed approach by the psychological one. I note that many forefront Ripperologists—Sugden, Begg, Evans, Fido and others—eschew psychology; while noted psychiatrists—Cleckley, Hare, Lykken—all advance the proposition that JtR was a psychopath, whoever he was. There never was a connection at the tops of the two fields, it seems. Hence I committed to an exploratory, playful method, giving each approach free reign to find its own equilibrium with respect to the other, encouraging an interaction between the two. Reactions to the Summary surprised even me with respect to the ferocity with which some on the empirical side would attack, deride, and attempt to destroy the psychological. For the most part, these are people who have accepted the current mass programming. They are for the most part technocratic types, perhaps with no college, perhaps with an engineering, hard science, business school, mathematics or other education relatively overdetermined in terms of something technical, and underdetermined in terms of psychology, humanities, music or other “arts of human nature.” Most are essentially attacking what they don’t understand, or know they are not very good at. On the other hand Ms Severin, who has prior experience with psychopaths in a rehabilitative setting, immediately saw and expressed the value and worthiness of my hypothesis.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
This is the second of a two-part post.
8. “Anyway, your idea that the letter was sent to Lusk to ensure Lusk increased his campaign for a reward and to increase it's amount. Not surprisingly, you've concluded this because of how clearly the letter makes no mention of the reward. Again, you attribute a meaning to a message that is not actually contained and/or hinted at in the message. Another way of saying, once again you are making stuff up in order to fit the evidence to your theory rather than fit your theory to the evidence.
>>Wake up! If the writer mentioned the reward, everyone would know his scam! He’s not stupid! What he wants to do is rejuvenate or reinvigorate Lusk’s morbid fear of the murder series, to get him to ignore Matthew’s new policy.
9. “A most amusing demonstration of this is your claim that when the letter writer "says" (without the orginal spelling errors) : "...I may send you the bloody knife that took it out if you only wait a while longer..." is supposed to be interpreted by Lusk as : "If you don't get off your behind and back to your campaign of demanding a Home Office reward forthwith, I may murder and mutilate you just like the women". Let's see, an offer to send him the knife isn't meant to be seen as "look, I sent you the kidney though the post, so I may send you my knife through the post too…"
>>Once Lusk has got the kidney in the mail, what greater effect would sending him the knife through the mail have on him? Obviously the letter and kidney are designed to increase Lusk’s terror, and a greater increase is hinted at, but how could a knife in a package accomplish that? Please note the similarity of the graffitus and the Lusk letter, both point to a future bad time for the respective targets of the communications if they don’t play ball in the present.
10. “…but rather as a threat to kill and mutilate if he doesn't do what? Well, obviously, that's the part that can't be said right out, but Lusk will know what the killer wants - which is to get back to seeking a reward. Again, the only way the killer could believe Lusk would understand his hidden meanings is if the killer were delusional, and again, you contradict your central premise of a non-delusional killer. So again, you demonstrate you do not understand the psychology texts you are reading.”
>>The whole point of the letter is NOT for Lusk to “understand the killer’s hidden meanings to get back to seeking a reward,” but simply to get very afraid and righteously indignant, and THEREBY to get back to seeking a reward. The killer doesn’t WANT Lusk to consciously think the letter HAS ANYTHING TO DO with the reward! Psychopaths are extremely good at manipulating people. That is in fact all they do concerning others, all the time. Essentially parasitic, they know no other way of life and get extremely good and in a sense remarkably subtle at it. All the psychopath is doing here is pushing Lusk’s button, and he knows what that button is simply by reading newspaper accounts of Lusk.
11. “And, you seem to ignor the fact that there is the report of the tall, Irish speaking, non-Jewish, male who asked for Lusk's address at the store. He was given an incomplete address, and this was how the Lusk parcel was delivered. Also, Lusk had complained that an Irish man was recently stalking around his house. So, although certainly not definitive, there is far more evidence to suggest this Irish fellow sent the kidney. Whether or not he's also the killer is a different matter. But, since you accept the letter as from the killer then the Irish man is the best suspect we have for sending it. This would entirely disprove your threory because it makes the killer a gentile.”
>>Thousands of parcels are delivered with incomplete addresses. If you’ve got a complete rational solution to the case anchored by a critically appraisable center, resolving all the evidence and pointing to the Irish priest, great! We’d love to hear it.
12. “If the letter is not genuine, it disproves your theory because the letter is central to your theory. And, if the Irish man did not send the kidney, your theory disproves itself because the interpretation of the "intended message" requires a delusional killer and you've defined your killer as non-delusional.”
>>No delusions are required or implied in my theory. True delusional thinkers do not repeatedly project irrationally concerning their ability to accomplish various nearly impossible things, as the Whitechapel murderer did. For a deluded subject, his wackiness is in what he thinks is the case. He thinks the KGB is chasing him, that he is Napoleon Bonaparte, that his great grandmother lives in his intestines, that he ‘knows the movements of all mankind’ as Aaron Kosminski did, etc. The case evidence does not indicate any delusions on the part of JtR.
13. “Berner Street: The whole idea that the killer hires Stride, then attacks her, then apologises, etc, is just so far fetched and based upon so many assumptions I just don't know where to start. The only "evidence" you offer has to do with Schwartz only noticing the man when he turned the corner.”
>>How does anything I say about Berner Street contradict the testimony of Schwartz? How does it contradict or even stretch the MEPO records? How is it logically self-contradictory as an account of psychopathic behavior? To the contrary, as the first half of my centered account of the double event, it constitutes a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. You have an immature concept of what a reasonable account need be—your criteria of what an assumption is in context of the known evidence of this case are arbitrary.
12. “You base this upon the transcripts we have in the newspapers, which are the transcripts of a translater, who translated what Schwartz said in response to translated questions posed to him. So let's see, Schwartz speaks, it gets translated (source 1 for signal degradation; meaning the exact wording of the translation could have implications not originally intended), then the reporter makes his notes (source 2 for signal degradation), then the reporter writes up his full story from his notes (source 3), then the editor makes corrections to the story (source 4). And, you base an entirely complicated scheme upon the particular wording of this information? If the wording is at all incorrect, and I've easily come up with 4 possible times where the exact wording could get flawed with respect to what Schwartz intended, your complicated scenerio all falls apart. You've got nothing to justify the whole notion that JtR hired Stride, etc. Again, you're making up stuff that is far too complicated to be supported by the evidence. You're well in to the ranks of Knights and Cornwell's here.”
>>I agree, if what Schwartz said is different from what really happened, I’ve got no theory. And, if what the other witness said is also different, by Jove, NOBODY has got a theory. And, by George by that logic maybe Neil Armstrong never set foot upon the moon! Don’t you see that what you’ve said above can be said of anything at all? But thanks to Abberline we have a reasonable assurance that what Schwartz said is usable.
13. “the Identification: I believe others have dealt with the identification well enough. There is no reason to suspect that Levy was Andersons witness. Again, the evidence contradicts your theory unless you make something up to fix it. Anyone who has studied philosophy, and understood it, knows that to "fix" a theory this way is logically unsound and logically unjustified; meaning it's an error of logic. Since you're posts clearly indicate you disagree with me on this point, you again demonstrate you do not understand the principles of the philosophy of science, specifically in the areas of what is known as "confermation theory" (A branch of philosophy that deals with how we test and build theories from evidence. It's applicable to all forms of research, not just that which is based upon the "scientific method").
>>How am I changing the evidence in any way? I think there is good reason to think of Levy as the witness, in view of his blurt to Harris before the murder, the marks on Eddowes’ face, his aversiveness regarding the press, the fact the witness blurted at Hove, and so on. One of your problems is you exclusively associate the term “reason” with “empirical evidence.” “We really only have a reason to believe what we know directly empirically” is your mantra. But there are other more subtle ways of knowing as well. Regarding “confirmation theory,” my work is confirmed two ways: first by mutually confirmatory oppositions as the evidence is analyzed point by point. Levy’s blurt to Harris and the marks on Eddowes’ face confirm one another. Murdering at two Jewish premises on the night of the double event confirm one another—I’ve got a hundred or more of these pairs, some are triplets or quadruplets. And second by the center of psychopathy confirming the whole of the evidence as interpreted. You are foolish to think I’ve not provided for ample confirmation.
14. “The cessation: You suggest that Levey confronts the killer after Mary's death. Levey demonstrates that he has the leverage in the situation and the killer agrees to stop. This action, this acceptance of subservience to the authority of Levey is completely polar opposite to the fundamental core of your proposed psychopath. The whole killing spree was supposed to have started from a conceptually identical situation. The killer initially embarks upon the killings to reclaim his authority when he had to submit to this authority. And now you want to claim that his chosen way to reassert himself he is going to give up in an identicle situation to someone else. Given how you keep claiming this killer acts upon his belief in his own abilities, (with the messages, etc), if we give him all this confidence, when his reclaimed authority is threatened by Levey, then Levey should be dead.”
>>I don’t believe a psychopath ever “submits” to any authority. They just don’t have a realistic enough notion of where they stand in the world to undertake a serious, well-motivated submissiveness. They are more wills-o-the-wisp. Neither do I think JtR submitted to Levy—as soon as the two agreed he’d stop killing in return for Levy’s protection, the murderer undoubtedly began pestering him for privileges like a mosquito buzzing around his head, the result ultimately being Hove. I do think that psychopaths are not stupid, and that he’d recognize that Levy had an effective wrinkle to run on him, and that he’d turn the page, go from there, get a new project. That’s just what he did to start the murder series, didn’t he?
15. “In fact, Levey should have been killed simply because of the possibility he may have recognised the killer.”
>>But the killer WANTED the witnesses to see him! That’s why he did the double event! How is Levy any different because he recognized him? He’s still a Jew, in the murderer’s opinion vulnerable to intimidation over the possibility of a pogrom.
16. “Everything you claim about your killer is completely undermined by the claim that the killer simply submits to Levey's leverage. And so once again, your theory is simply contradicting itself. At almost everyone point, almost every action, almost every "intention" that you attribute to your killer, contradicts your fundamental premise, or contradicts the character you build up at one point and becomes a different character to get your theory through the next hurdle. The conclusion is that your theory is self contradicting, and therefore it is false.”
>>I’d really have to be a completely hopeless klutz to publish such a trashy theory, wouldn’t I? I believe that is simply what you want me to be, so you can have a nice, soft, round a** to publicly kick. I believe in myself.
17. “The epistomological centre: I've addressed this throughout this post as the best way to deal with the fundamental premise (in this case) is to show that the subsequent statements do not follow from the initial premise.
>>And I have shown definitively here that all of them do. Thanks for your help!
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
It is with some sadness that I must report the latest offerings of the 'Andersonian school' of Ripperology, masquerading under the their newish title of "Alternative Ripperology", once again evoke the ghost of the 'crazy Jew',( taking liberties with the IRONIC and LACONIC utterances of the Jew-baiter, Dr Robert Anderson), they have descended into farce. With what NAIVETY, with the grossest gullability based on a 'textbookology approach' that sneers at rationalism and the foundations of modern western philosophy... empiricism.
This same empiricism demands no less than the Sophists claims...produce this so-called "Swanson marginalia" for the examination of the peers, or melt away slowly into the twilight of the gods!
PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!
Rosey -)) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
“Those who approach this from a background in psychology will always want to keep things general; those whose background is in history will always be concerned precisely with what you call pedestrian--the statements McWilliam wrote at the City in 1888 or what Swanson scribbled in 1911 or what was going on with the Evening News when they reported that Levy was hiding something. These details are the life-blood of the case. David would be naive to think his theory wouldn't stand or fall based on 'pedestrian' stuff' or what he sometimes seems to believe are nearly empirical afterthoughts. To state otherwise is a bit like saying 'don't let facts stand in the way of a good story.'”
>>This good post illustrates the two opposing camps of Ripperology—the empirical and the psychological. Following the work of Richard Whittington-Egan, the field accelerated into becoming largely an historical/empiricist club, and no author challenged the powers that were. The audience, the publishers, the authors, and the journalists all realized that historical objectivity and detail was the way to be taken seriously, and the pendulum swung far to the right. It even became possible to play both sides of the street at once—you could both write one book that presented nothing but the facts germane to the case, and also write another book that presented a solution based 100% on facts, albeit facts unrelated to the case evidence. You were “on the cutting edge” either way. In other words, a funny thing happened on the way to the solution of the case made possible by the many new books being published—historical became empirical, and the “facts” became the touchstone for both good and evil, for both reliable reference and crankery. Unfortunately, no net improvement in Ripperology took place as a result of what RWE wrote, the “life blood” of the field dried in its veins, and now almost everybody believes that the solution, if it ever comes, will be in the general form of a Diary found in an attic or some other missing empirical piece.
So, it seems what the field needs is an alternative, a leavening of the detailed approach by the psychological one. I note that many forefront Ripperologists—Sugden, Begg, Evans, Fido and others—eschew psychology; while noted psychiatrists—Cleckley, Hare, Lykken—all advance the proposition that JtR was a psychopath, whoever he was. There never was a connection at the tops of the two fields, it seems. Hence I committed to an exploratory, playful method, giving each approach free reign to find its own equilibrium with respect to the other, encouraging an interaction between the two. Reactions to the Summary surprised even me with respect to the ferocity with which some on the empirical side would attack, deride, and attempt to destroy the psychological. For the most part, these are people who have accepted the current mass programming. They are for the most part technocratic types, perhaps with no college, perhaps with an engineering, hard science, business school, mathematics or other education relatively overdetermined in terms of something technical, and underdetermined in terms of psychology, humanities, music or other “arts of human nature.” Most are essentially attacking what they don’t understand, or know they are not very good at. On the other hand Ms Severn, who has prior experience with psychopaths in a clinical setting, immediately saw and expressed the value and worthiness of my hypothesis.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
“The whole idea is only as good as the parts that make it up. If those parts aren't good, the whole isn't good. What you call getting bogged down in nitpicking, is dealing with the specifics of David's theory....many of which don't support that theory as a whole.”
>>Ripperology is not a zero-sum game, though. The opposite can be said, too. In other words, if we DON’T make a rational whole out of the evidence based on reason and a critically determined center, what will restrain others from making various irrational theories based on well-nitpicked facts? The masses will be manipulated. Laugh about it, shout about it, when it’s time to chose. Any way you look at it, you lose.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
Mr. David Radka,
I have a splendid idea!
Why not sack all police officers and criminal investigators, and then replace them with psychiatrists? That should do the trick, eh?
I mean, since we obviously don't need criminology and rationalism in order to solve criminal cases...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 132
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
Hey now Glenn, don't go blaming psychiatrists for Radka's theory as it directly contradicts what they say about psychopaths. You should be asking if he wants all psychiatrists, police officers and criminal investigators replaced with accountants.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Dan,
I thought that was correct (c) Jennifer Pegg but I wasn't sure. I'm so glad it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FOR GODS SAKE DAVID STOP COPYRIGHTING YOUR POSTs, it makes you look like an Arrogant idiot! (see I'm trying to be helpful).
cheers
Jennifer |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:10 am: | |
The Summary first appeared in the last week of April, and the counter already now approaches 500. If we continue at only about half this rate, we'll have over 2,000 posts after one year! Just imagine what a contribution to solving the case that would be! Thanks to Mr. Ryder, the power of the internet has been brought to bear on this intractable mystery. My thanks as well to everyone participating for the great reception.
God bless you all,
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 9:06 pm: | |
“Mr. Nelson himself hits the nail on the head as regards the result of all this speculation - "...nothing concrete." This is, of course, not confined to speculation on the Polish Jew theory, it rears its head in relation to theorising on all suspects. And all writers do it, try to link known facts with speculation on their pet suspect.
So, this commentary on Mr. Nelson's work isn't, I hope, too harsh. He's not the only one to do it. But, please, don't let us confuse theories, subjective interpretation, rhetoric, coincidence, and possibilities with anything approaching hard facts.”
>>Scott is the most interesting Ripperologist I know, because he generates reasonable questions out of his hard research, and offers them to his readers as a contribution to the field. He uses research to open doors and involve others in search of a key that may explain the case evidence. Just because he asks questions doesn’t mean he has a “pet suspect,” or that he “speculates.” Mr. Longman on the other hand doesn’t ask questions, as long as he sticks with the “hard facts” he’s safe he thinks, sequestered in his study away from others, except that there are no “hard facts”. Everything comes to us as interpreted, and our interpretations need to be subjected to criticism. Isn’t a good question a critical tool, Mr. Longman? Asking questions is the solid ground on which Ripperology needs to walk.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Quick look-in response, out of order:
"Why not sack all police officers and criminal investigators, and then replace them with psychiatrists? That should do the trick, eh?
I mean, since we obviously don't need criminology and rationalism in order to solve criminal cases..."
Who says we don't need rationalism? I have a rationalist solution, as I see it. I wouldn't want to broadly say we don't need criminology at all, either. The aspect of it that misleads us, however, is its progressive nature. Criminologists need to develop a working idea of who they are looking for in order to do their work. So they take the evidence they have and use statistics, experience, psychology, and other sources to begin setting up a profile or model. They then discuss the model amongst themselves, refining it as best they can, and thus their work is orchestrated and orderly. Every time they get new evidence, they change the model with respect to it. Theoretically, they then have a universal asymptotic model-curve that gets ever closer to being correct, until an arrest is made. Criminology works progressively, like calculus. As long as there is new evidence coming in, and as long as everyone understands that the modeler always has his hands in the wet clay, always reshaping and modifying it as the case proceeds, fine. Criminology is in its natural element and doing its job. But if we use this sort of thing on a 116 year-old case, in which we aren't getting any new evidence, then we are mixing our metaphors. It just doesn't work. The modes we need to use instead are exegesis of the written word, questioning, logic, predication as much as possible over probability, and philosophy.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 8:58 pm: | |
1.“Mr. Radka has informed us that Levy lied and gave false evidence at the Eddowes inquest. The official record cannot be trusted but the inferences of the reporter for the 'Evening News' can be accepted - that Levy 'knew something'. Well, of course, he did. He knew what he was going to say at the upcoming inquest and he wasn't going to share that with the press.”
>>What you say is grossly out of line with respect to my comments on the case. I’m in no way stating that Levy lied based merely on what the ‘Evening News’ reporter wrote. I’m going with the graffitus, the comment to Harris, the marks on Eddowes’ face, the blurt at Hove, and other points, all as interpreted as a whole. Forget about what the reporter wrote, and my position is the same. You comment shows insensitivity to rational questioning and discourse. You are further talking as if you are able to read Levy’s mind concerning why he wouldn’t talk to the reporter, generally a sign of bad Ripperology.
2. “And there we have it, the historical record being changed to suit a theory. And Mr. Radka states it, apparently, as a fact. He says, "They only believed Levy couldn't furnish a description because that's what Levy told them." Even more than that, "He lied to the police concerning what he saw." And from this monumental conclusion Mr. Radka's whole reconstruction is pure speculation.”
>>You worship history to your own demise. And I DO NOT make a conclusion, I ask a question. I question whether Levy was lying, and give reasons why he may have been. My conclusion is the whole.
3. “Mr. Radka also doesn't understand the nature of an Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard. He didn't become involved with hands-on investigation and did not interview witnesses. He had subordinate officers to do all that. He sat in the ivory tower of his office and hob-nobbed with the upper echelons of the police and society.”
>>Another confidently made dissimilative mess. Anderson and Swanson relate the story of a private, extra-legal identification, don't they? Who do you think set that up, at a site where Anderson himself was a corporate Director no less? Some police constable? And Anderson certainly doesn’t describe himself as an ivory tower type in his book, far from it. Many times during his career he says he needed to get directly involved to see that the greatest justice was done in a specific important case. Wouldn’t the Whitechapel murders be such a case?
4. “Another point that should be noted is the fact that even if it could be proved that Levy knew actually knew the Kosminski family it would still not amount to much. It would merely provide circumstantial support for a theory that has no real evidence to prove any part of it true.”
>>Now you’re so defiantly numb to the meaning of the case evidence you’re almost delusional. Hard evidence is not circumstantial! If we had hard evidence of a relationship between Levy and the Kosminski family, we’d have to strongly suspect Levy were lying at the inquest, to protect someone close to Aaron.
5. “Notice the 'ifs', 'how would?s' in Mr. Radka's posts. We can all see where he is coming from. Support his theorising in any shape or form and you will be, like Mr. Nelson, 'amongst the best Ripperologists he knows' or, like Ms. Severn, the subject of glowing recommendations from Mr. Radka. He interprets the constructive criticism of his theory as "the abuse" of those who don't understand 'where he's coming from'.”
>>Are you saying Scott and Natalie don’t know what they are talking about? I think the evidence is strong that they know whereof they speak, mine freund. I value the hard case evidence. Mr. Longman on the other hand takes it in the sense of a doctor practicing exclusively out of the American Medical Association’s “Physician’s Desk Reference.” NO QUESTIONS ARE PERMITTED, and any procedure not specifically recommended is tantamount to homeopathy or chiropractic. But the case evidence, most especially the witness accounts, is not like that; it hasn’t been scientifically proven in laboratories and before medical boards of review. It is often just information, and unconfirmed at that. If you take it reflexively or superficially, you’re not thinking.
6. “The Jews' sighting was made immediately on leaving the Imperial Club, and from the opposite side of the road, by gaslight, in the wee small hours of the morning - NOT "in the gloaming", as Mr. Radka so picturesquely describes it (surely 'the gloaming' is early evening twilight?). And surely, if Levy instantly recognised the man, he would have mentioned the fact to Lawende and Harris, there was no murder to worry about at that stage.”
>>Levy’s actions at the time indicate that he started to do just that, but held himself back from providing more complete information. This is understandable under the circumstances. Harris and Lawende would certainly think of Levy as talking behind the man’s back if he told on him for consorting with a prostitute. After blurting, Levy did what anyone would do. He remained discrete concerning the private affairs of another person.
Wasn’t the Imperial Club on the same side of the road as the Synagogue?
7. “Mr. Radka also has other things he accepts as given facts, such as there was an identification in Brighton. This has never been proven in any shape or form. The whole identfication question is a very shaky and uncertain aspect. It requires much faith in statements made 22 years after the event and has no other support at all. How on earth would only Anderson and Swanson be the only ones to know of an attempted identification that was, prima facie, according to Anderson, made. A murder suspect (and suspected insane person) would require an escort, the asylum authorities would need to know, etc., etc.”
>>Very simply, Anderson gave everyone minimal information, then told them to shut up and they did. Happens all the time. Aaron was apparently taken from the workhouse, where the police had a more cozy relationship than the asylum. Aaron had never been in an asylum prior to the identification. Maybe Anderson did tell the top banana of Colney Hatch that Aaron had a past history of violence, but was no longer violent. I’m sure all sorts of things are said to asylums when someone is committed, very much in confidence. Swanson did not contradict Anderson when he should have, if what Anderson said were significantly incorrect. If Anderson wanted to do all the things I say he did, he could have easily arranged them.
8. “Mr. Radka appears to forget that the sighting was never positively proved to be that of the killer and Eddowes. The woman was identified by clothing alone, and it was black clothing and the lighting was poor. Couple this with the fact that it was an area in which prostitutes were known to solicit, it is conceivable that whilst this sighting was being made the murder was actually taking place in the Square. This weakness in the evidence was noted by the police at the time.”
>>You conveniently don’t mention the timeframe here, which demonstrates conclusively that the man seen with Eddowes killed her. The possibility that the man left and she picked up someone else is extremely remote.
9. “But, of course, Anderson did not lie and was not devious. He merely employed "his spymaster's subterfuge". By the way, subterfuge means 'attempt to escape censure or defeat in argument by evading the issue or using deception' - now THAT does sound like Anderson so I guess Mr. Radka has that bit right. Still, Mr. Radka assures us that he finds "no reason whatever to doubt Anderson's character in the large sense." Whew, that's a relief, for a minute there I thought that we were losing faith in the mainstay of this theory.”
>>Once again, if you want to say he can’t be trusted on the big things, show us conclusively historical examples of his having had a bad character. I don’t find them.
10. “In terms of the investigative CID Anderson WAS 'the police', he was the man in charge of all the detectives and the man directing the investigation from the top. A further admission by Mr. Radka, "...an ounce of empirical fact is worth a pound of hypotheses." I guess he feels that six pounds of hypothesis outweighs a couple of ounces of fact.”
>>You don’t know how to hypothesize responsibly. You’ve got an inflexibility that narrows you, and bleaches out your color. I feel sorry you can’t understand the case solution.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:16 pm: | |
1.“"Witness: Scott Nelson, Paul Begg and other Ripperologists have not yet found such a firm connection, despite that they are consciously looking for one. " And sometimes a connection isn't found because there is no connection. This is very strangely argued. The lack of evidence certainly doesn't allow you to assume a connection, does it? Build a dream castle, but don't expect everyone to live in it.”
>>How many times do I have to repeat myself? Take the purported connection between Martin Kosminski and Aaron Kosminski, throw it in the toilet and flush it down. It is not necessary for the case solution. I’m not saying there was no connection, I’m saying none has been proven, and there need not be one.
2. "First of all, it was 18 months, not 3 years after the fact"... When I read stuff like this a strange, bemused smile comes over me. Levy testified at the Eddowes Inquest on October 11, 1888. After that he fell off the police radar. He never came forward. He came forward 18 months later. He came forward in February 1891, 28 months later. Or he came forward after the suspect was in the asylum (isn't that how Anderson once put it?)-- 3 years later. When you delve into the theoretical, it's all the same, really-- because there's no evidence for any of it . Documentation can't be treated as a unnecessary bonus, an afterthought. When the Prosecutor walks into the courtroom, the jury expects him to have something in his brief-case. I guess that's why I have a difficult time approaching your dissertation except in a negative way.”
>>None of the above are part of my position except for Levy coming forward after 18 months, a position you misrepresented in your prior post. The rest is a pile of arrogant **** on your part. I’ve said this many times before—Ripperology is not a legal trial, there is no jury, no brief-case. It is interpretations of the evidence.
3. “The following is unavoidably subjective, but when I read Anderson's statement concerning the identification, I don't get the impression that he's describing an event where he had some secret agreement with the witness. Anderson sounds almost wistful about the French police squeezing information from "unwilling lips." It doesn't ring true that he formed some secret pact with a witness that sought to bamboozle him. All he's describing is an uncooperative witness--and revealing his own subjective belief as to why the witness was uncooperative.
>>That may well have been the case. What’s your problem with my work?
4. “Have you really dealt with my former question about the alleged set-up in Duke Street? You state that the murderer contrived the scene. I think your readers will want to know what exactly are you calling "closing time" at the Imperial Club. Was this 1 a.m.? 1:30 a.m.? The men testified that they were delayed by the rainfall. They "didn't get up" until 1:30--which implies they had planned to leave earlier. Even then they didn't leave the building until four or five minutes later. This is in the inquest reports. So how long was the murderer loitering in the rain with Eddowes at the corner of Church passage, waiting for the witnesses to disembark? Where was he when PC Harvey was making the round prior to the 1:40 trip up the passage? Details. But all of this seems rather moot. If you're going to move the "jury", you need to be able to take this away from mere internally consistant into the realm of the "empirical." RP”
>>The murderer had a general idea about closing time at the Imperial Club so as to approximately be there to get seen by somebody leaving. He needed a second murder on the same night to get the money. So he picks up Eddowes, leads her to Church Passage, waits for the first witness to pass (albeit he got three at once) and then kills her. Why do I have to worry about how long he loitered? About closing time exactly? Do you know these details you are asking me? If they are not in the official records, then we don’t know them. Show me how my position is in any way contradicted by the evidence, don’t saddle me with extraneous empirical responsibilities that my theory doesn’t need, and on which it neither stands nor falls.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:43 pm: | |
“I fully understand the term "psychopath." David's theory in many places deviates quite substantially from that concept. Your quote from the Oxford Medical Dictionary is accurate, for as short as it is, but note that it does not include all the bizarre lack of coherent communication ability, incredibly irrational behavior and so forth that are a cornerstone of David's theory…Of course, even then, the criteria used do not fit with David's theory. David seems content to try to rationalize the most bizarre nonsensical behavior as psychopathy, even when it doesn't fit the concept at all.”
>>I’ve got no idea what this post means. I don’t know what you mean about my theory “deviating substantially from the concept of psychopathy.” Is this a joke? Please post a detailed description of what you think this disorder is, how it works, and how it is represented in the actual behavior of those who have it, and then state concisely how you think my description of JtR’s actions doesn’t fit that. If you know about what psychopaths are like, you ought to be able to write 2 or 3 typewritten pages about the disorder easily enough. Give us a full-fledged critique of how you think I’ve misunderstood the syndrome from soup to nuts. I’ve got no clue why you say, for example, that I think JtR had a lack of coherent communication ability.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 8:05 pm: | |
Hi Rosemary,
Why try and spoil it? "PUT UP or SHUT UP", do you _really_ think David will take one of those opptions? I somehow wager not :-o
Me, I'm just waiting for the likes of Sadman, Bullwinkle and Rocket J Squirrel to get a hint of this new theory.
I've seen the quality of their posts before and they'll likely rip this new upstart to shreds.
Those folks are true geniuses not like this air head Radka.
Come on Sadman where are you when we all need you - come on Sadman, come and b*st his b*lls.
Cheerio,
ian
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
David,
Did you notice that when you first posted up your article we were nice to you. It is only as the weeks have gone by and you still have not answered certain questions to peoples satisfaction that we may have started to get a little bit p. off. Please take note I find your posts very amusing but they do not clear up your theory. I do not really wish to comment further on your theory until I have had the chance to read more about the subjects mentioned.
No you have not insulted me directly but your attitude is certainly interesting - you insulted ripperologists in your article (thats us AND you) don't tell me you've forgot about that!
The author asserts her moral right to be identified as the author of this work pursuant to Section 77, The Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988.
Copyright Jennifer D. Pegg, 2004.
(Message edited by jdpegg on June 02, 2004)
Jennifer |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
“Natalie,
What you just said basically is that we should pay more attention to the overall idea than the several logistical inconsistencies presented by the "homogenous entity". Once people start doing that, why not just swallow every illogical whackadoo conspiracy out there, ignoring all those illogical little details. Because after all, it's the idea that's important, right?”
>>I don’t know to what “homogenous entity” refers, but let me take a stab at the question. Since there’s always going to be an ideal spin on the case, then we ought to consider what the best spin is. All our ideas on the case, even the “little details,” come to us as a part of the spin. There is no un-spun, bare facts empirical detail, despite what some wish to believe. The “bare facts” of the case is a myth—there have many different theories on the “bare facts.” Since everything is pre-interpreted for us, we’ve got to analyze the case as a whole, and create for it in a logical way the best interpretation of the data. That doesn’t mean we go nuts with “whackadoo conspiracy” theories, it means we use logic and reason in accord with the case evidence. In the end, whatever we say about the case rests on nothing more than the case evidence. With respect to the “illogical little details,” by all means let’s discuss them here. If they defeat the interpretation, then let it be. I suspicion, however, that many objections thought to be decisive really are not. They are overhasty surmises based on unfamiliarity with my theory or with psychopathy.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1840
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 2:18 pm: | |
Dan,
"Hey now Glenn, don't go blaming psychiatrists for Radka's theory as it directly contradicts what they say about psychopaths. You should be asking if he wants all psychiatrists, police officers and criminal investigators replaced with accountants."
Very good point. I agree, that's probably it.
Unless Radka has his mind set on creating a whole new "alternative" field in psychology, rather than alternative Ripperology...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 133
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:36 pm: | |
Hi David,
"I’ve got no idea what this post means. I don’t know what you mean about my theory 'deviating substantially from the concept of psychopathy.'"
The reason you don't know what the post means is that you don't understand what a psychopath really is like, just your mangled ideas based upon a layman's reading of a book that is several decades old.
"Please post a detailed description of what you think this disorder is, how it works, and how it is represented in the actual behavior of those who have it, and then state concisely how you think my description of JtR’s actions doesn’t fit that. "
I've already posted links to the DSM IV diagnostic criteria. Maria posted other criteria from Hare's PCL-R as well. And I've already well explained several times now why your theory doesn't fit how actual psychopaths act, as you falsely claim that psychopaths lack all emotions, have wildly delusional thinking, and send crazy messages to other people that they expect others to understand.
It's rather silly for you to now reply to an old post of mine and ask me to respond with something that I already did several weeks ago.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:13 pm: | |
>>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.
This is a remarkable answer, pehaps your most amazing answer ever. Tap-dancing, I'd call it.
First of all, you show a lack of self-respect by truncating and distorting the original point--for I clearly wasn't making that argument.
But what is far more fascinating is your new-found Empiricism.
>>>If you want Levy to be the witness show me that he knew Aaron Kosminski's family.
What's the diff? None, of course.
But when one uses the A?R method, history is just one big wonderful board game and all the doors are open. Macnaghten being Chief Constable during the Kosiminski investigation +Kosminski strongly resembling the man seen by the PC + the identification happening at Hove+(whatever bits & pieces I dare to drudge up) = logical confirmation that the PC was Jewish. (We really don't need trivialities like documentation, do we?) Alas, if it were really this easy....
Q.E.D.T.A.R.I.B.S.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
“Hi David,
Mr. Radka's post: "What we do not find in Hitler, at least as far as I can see, are examples of obvious self-contradictions, such as taking 1,000 miles of territory and then finding no real need of it and giving it back. Or designing V-2 rockets to devastate London and then deciding they'd make cooler fireworks instead, and shooting them off nightly over Berlin. This is the kind of thing that psychopaths do, over and over again."
Mr. Norder's response: There's nothing in the clinical criteria for determining if someone is a psychopath or not that involves self-contradictions of this sort. A psychopath is someone without a conscience, not someone without a functioning brain. You sound more like you are talking about psychosis than psychopathy.”
>>Mr. Radka's rebuttal: The following are clinical observations of actual psychopaths made by psychiatrists. All subjects were found to have no psychosis or delusions:
“His failure (in the practice of actual living) is so complete and so dramatic that it is difficult to see how such a failure could be achieved by anyone less defective than a downright madman or by a person totally or almost totally unable to grasp emotionally the major components of meaning or feeling implicit in the thoughts that he expresses or the experiences he appears to go through.” (Hervey M. Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity, p. 370)
“(The psychopath under study engaged in) unprovoked and...self-damaging folly carried out more or less as a whim, perhaps in defiance of authority, or as an arrogant gesture to show his immunity to ordinary rules and restrictions.” (Cleckley, p. 332)
“(He plunges) into activity...representative of perverse or disintegrative drives, of aims at sharp variance with everything his outer self seems to represent.” (Cleckley, p. 219)
“(The psychopathic Ph.D. candidate) now and then...was disabled (by his absurd projects from continuing his studies) for several days or a week, during which times he drank enough to remain semiconscious or climbed into trees, from which he hurled noisy defiance at his friends and later at policemen who attempted to get him down. He drank chiefly alone and sometimes urinated in bureau drawers, his own or his roommate’s shoes, and indulged in other pranks of the same caliber.” (Cleckley, p. 203)
“...(His) actual conduct when drinking, and sometimes when sober, is bizarre, often shameful and shocking, and actively damaging to himself...(He) appears to be driving primarily at evading, or ignoring, or destroying life itself, that is to say, life in the sense of social attainments and subjective integration.” (Cleckley, p. 313)
“…the long and varied series of outlandish pranks and inanely coarse scenes…” (Cleckley, p. 356)
“…asocial, unacceptable, and self-defeating behavior…grotesque shenanigans…” (Cleckley, p. 357.)
“(In the psychopath) we find…a spectacle that suggests madness in excelsis, despite the absence of all those symptoms that enable us, in some degree, to account for the irrational conduct in the psychotic.” (Cleckley, p. 364.)
“...Hits upon conduct and creates situations so bizarre, so untimely, and so preposterous that their motivation appears inscrutable, ...his exploits seem directly calculated to place him in a disgraceful or ignominious position,...often chooses pranks and seeks out situations that would have no appeal for the ordinary person, whether the ordinary person be drunk or sober,...consistently (brings off) scenes not only uncongenial but even unimaginable to the average man.” (Cleckley, p. 357)
“...Notable tendencies to hit upon unsatisfactory conduct in all fields and...apparent inability to take seriously what would be to others repugnant and regrettable.” (Cleckley, p. 360)
“A negative response to life itself, an aversion at levels more basic than ordinary morals or the infraconscious foundations of taste and incentive…” (Cleckley, p. 393)
|
G. Longman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 1:48 am: | |
The simple answer here is that Levy didn't get a good look at the suspect, as he said in his evidence.
The Goulston Street wall-writing was mere street scribbling on the wall above where the killer disposed of the portion of apron, and there were no cryptic messages left by the killer for anyone.
Mr. Radka has fallen into the trap of so many Ripper theorists. He thinks too long and hard about his own pet theory and it becomes fact in his own mind. He makes his own ground rules and convinces himself that he is right and everyone else is wrong. He simply cannot understand why everyone doesn't agree with him.
Trouble is, he has to convince everyone else that he is right. In reality the only real discovery he has made is simple. In the Ripper world the only way the case is ever going to be solved is in your own mind.
I don't think I can encourage his circular argument by contributing any more. After all, there are other things in life... aren't there? |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
“And since you reposted the mention of Juwes to refer to a Christian sunday school... to sum up a previous post of mine that disappeared:
1) Do you have any proof that the term "Juwe" existed back in 1888?
>>Jugendwerk very likely did, Juwe would have certainly been used as a contraction at least in some places in Germany. I’m looking through German literature of the day for as much concordance as I can find for the Thesis. In any event, my interpretation of the graffitus is the same. It was an attempt on the part of the murderer to intimidate the witnesses into not giving him away to the police, based on the prospect of Gentile anti-Semitism and related Jewish backlash against the witnesses if they did.
2) As a German word, "Juwes" would be completely incorrect as a plural.
>>You’re taking me out of context in a manipulative manner. Incorrect as a plural in German doesn’t matter from the perspective of the murderer. Rhyming with “Jews” matters—that’s what supposedly gets his point across.
3) Where's the logic in believing that a Jew would make a message for other Jews using a term for a Christian sunday school?
>>You’re taking me out of context in a manipulative manner. As I wrote, because the malapropism connotes the Jewish witnesses acting as proto-Christians in their giving information about the murderer to the police. The Jewish population is supposed to conclude that this would lead to a demand on the part of the Queen that all of them convert to Christianity or be expelled from Britain. In other words, recent history in Russ-Poland involving these same Jewish people and the Tsar would repeat itself. Would there be a strong likelihood that the witnesses would be able to decode the message and apply it to themselves? No.
4. “And, for another example of what I mentioned in the previous post:
"And therefore the way we know that we are on the right track in solving the case at this point is that we can see that we are dealing with a psychopath, in that he uses FAILED communication techniques." There's nothing in the diagnostic criteria of psychopathy about failed communication techniques. In fact, a great many psychopaths are excellent communicators. They know just what to say in just the right way to get people to do what they want.”
>>You’re moving me out of context in a manipulative manner. What I’m saying is the murderer is an effetely pompous and egocentrical person because he is a psychopath, and therefore that he formulates a pompously foolish and ineffective communication. The communication fails because he is pompous, just the same as he has a massive record of failure throughout life because he is so radically egocentrical, and has no real way to imagine a reasonable place in the world for himself in relation to others. I’m certainly not implying that he doesn’t know how to communicate, I’m saying that what he wrote reflects his irrational and foolish belief that he can accomplish what other men could not in various fields.
Please understand that psychiatrists making diagnoses are extensively trained, and have considerable experience with many different kinds of disturbed people to support them. Diagnostic criteria of any epoch in the profession are not alone intended to give the full picture to enable a diagnosis. Many normal people have some of the characteristics of a psychopath. A psychiatrist has got a person that he can tell is disturbed by his experience, and by the history of the patient, sitting in front of him when he makes a diagnosis. It is a mistake to move the diagnostic criteria out of this context.
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 134
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:19 pm: | |
I ask if David has any proof that the German abbreviation "Juwe" was used in 1888 to contradict the multiple statements that it was created in the 1960s. He replies that he *thinks* the full word existed back then.
I point out that Cleckley is severely outdated (50+ years old) and that modern professional references contradict David's beliefs about psychopaths, so he tries to use Cleckley to support himself.
And so forth and so on...
Trying to follow all of David's circular logic is getting me dizzy.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
Dan,
I think we should start to ignore this thread our questions will never be answered!!!!!!
David,
Thanks for putting your work on the internet. Reading this thread has been an enjoyable experience. Now I'm out of here!
Cheers
Jennifer |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
1. Well, after having read your responses David, I find no reason to change any of my posts or my concerns. You're counter example of a psychopath making strange choices based upon over confidence is entirely inappropriate as a counter example. See, your psychopath in Clerkly was clear in transmitting their message of what they wanted the other person to do. It was "what they were asking for" that was a bit strange, but the transmission of the request was clear. (Mr. Hamm refers to an example of Cleckley’s I had given of a psychopath urging his girlfriend to write his abandoned wife, asking her to take her husband back because he had been a good boyfriend to her. The psychopath had previously told the girlfriend that his wife was deceased.)”
>>Your point indicates a great misunderstanding of psychopaths and their behavior. If you’ve read anything of substance in the field, which I rather doubt, it apparently went right past your head. Psychopathy involves a grave egocentric degradation of human perspective, or of the ability to comprehend oneself as an equivalent participant in interactions with others or with the community. Sometimes this condition is described as an antisocial personality arising purely from temperament, as opposed to arising from learning or the environment. This degradation makes the subject grossly overestimate his personal capabilities and entitlement and repeatedly behave irrationally on the level of complete insanity, despite the absence of delusions. Instead of from delusions, his behavior arises from gross defects of perspective and judgment. The irrationality is not in the mental thoughts of the subject, as in the case of psychotic delusions; it is in the syndromatical mis-development of his personality as a human being. This condition is so paradoxical that psychiatry doesn’t yet have an adequate way to classify it, or to reach fundamental conclusions on its nature, albeit psychopaths as a well-defined type are generally recognizable to an experienced psychiatrist under clinical conditions. We may still be hundreds of years away from a genuine, workable classification for these people, despite their typology is well recognized. The legal and layman definitions of insanity, which psychiatry is much better at classifying, relate to mental phenomena (or physical-mental in the case of brain tumors, chemical imbalances, and such)—if you believe what is manifestly untrue, such as the KGB having built a computer into the wall of your bathroom to record your bowel movements, then you are insane and the law will accord you special considerations. Quite simply then, the two examples under consideration here, JtR’s communications concerning the marks on Eddowes’ face, the graffitus and the Lusk letter on the one hand, and the husband’s urging his girlfriend to write to his wife on the other, are psychologically equivalent, albeit the practical situations are different. They both involve gross personal overestimation and misjudgment with respect to the psychopath’s ability to accomplish the effect on others he desires.
2. “You're suspect, however, is trying to send "hidden messages", basically as if they are trying to send psychic thoughts. The message is apparently unrelated to the meaning. These kinds of communications, the notion that the suspect thinks he can send "secret messages" to someone who has no reason to ever even see the message, is entirely different from clearly telling someone what to do (even the the requested act is self defeating). You describe a delusional thinker. Clerkly does not.”
>>Both Cleckley and I describe irrational, egocentric personalities. Same thing. In both cases, the subject perpetrates a project as irrational as if he were clinically insane, and he is free of delusions. JtR does not attempt telepathy, he is supremely confident his communication targets will receive and understand the messages in the normal sense, and he’s fully aware that he is constrained from saying overtly what he wants them to do by the public nature of the communication—i.e., he doesn’t want to give himself and his intentions away to the police. The whole thing is quite intelligent, well considered and massively irrational, all at the same time.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
“…I'm also not so sure why David feels so certain that he is the only person who has had the thought that JTR was a psychopath. By the more common definition, it doesn't take that many brain cells to determine that a guy who strangles, almost decapitates in some cases, mutilates what he thinks is post-mortem and removes organs a "psycho". Even by the more clinical definition of the word, it's not to much of a leap of logic to deduce that the killer just might fit that definition.”
>>This post illustrates the fundamental lack of understanding of psychopathy and distortions of my position now rampant on this thread, also typical of the posts of Mr. Norder and Mr. Hamm, and accountable for the thread’s ongoing degradation. “Psycho” is not a psychiatric term; it is slang for any popular conflation or misunderstanding of psychiatry, such as seen in the title of Alfred Hitchcock’s movie. “Psycho” can arbitrarily refer to any psychiatric deficit, from paranoid schizophrenia to psychosis to psychopathy; hundreds of types or variations are possible. I narrow it down to one specific, well-defined type, and demonstrate how the evidence is held together and makes sense based on that single idea.
A. No previous Ripperologist has ever published a well-articulated solution of the case, logically analyzing all the evidence under the central idea of psychopathy. If such a solution has ever been published, please give its title here. I am the first person to publish a whole thought or complete idea of the case as an example of psychopathy.
B. It is not my plan to simply say the killer “just might fit the definition” of a psychopath, but instead to show in full detail how he does, straight from the case evidence. Big difference.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 343
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
"No previous Ripperologist has ever published a well-articulated solution of the case, logically analyzing all the evidence under the central idea of psychopathy."
And, no subsequent Ripperologist has done so either.
-K |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 268
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 6:31 am: | |
Great Scott it's early. Almost 6 AM. I just got back from the hospital to find that David has responded to one of my posts. w00t.
David -
Good Morning. Now we are getting somewhere. Let's begin a dialog, shall we? You'll have to forgive any absence I might have, I do have pressing issues in real life® to attend from time to time. Weekends are bad because I have a 4 year old little girl that requires large amounts of attention.
You recently typed:
">>This post illustrates the fundamental lack of understanding of psychopathy and distortions of my position now rampant on this thread, also typical of the posts of Mr. Norder and Mr. Hamm, and accountable for the thread’s ongoing degradation. “Psycho” is not a psychiatric term; it is slang for any popular conflation or misunderstanding of psychiatry, such as seen in the title of Alfred Hitchcock’s movie. “Psycho” can arbitrarily refer to any psychiatric deficit, from paranoid schizophrenia to psychosis to psychopathy; hundreds of types or variations are possible. I narrow it down to one specific, well-defined type, and demonstrate how the evidence is held together and makes sense based on that single idea."
This is your response to a post I made (here) almost a month ago, for those reading along at home.
To which I have the following statements.
A) Thanks for the response. Is there a particular reason you waited almost a full month before typing it?
B) Because you almost always fail to respond in a courteous and concise manner, skewing of your position has been and always will be 'rampant'. Furthermore, this thread began to take a severe downturn after you came on it and proclaimed how high your IQ was (or there abouts. A claim that you have since failed to back up btw). Not when people like myself, Mr. Hamm and Mr. Norder (to name a few) decided to pose some questions. Asking questions doesn't make a thread go bad. Like in real life, attitude contributes. It was only after your initial shift to a "BUT I'M SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU, SO I MUST BE RIGHT" (emphasis and interpretation mine) attitude that this thread 'degraded', as you so lovingly put it. Despite your best efforts, you can not prove malicious intent in any of my questions. I attribute this to there not being any in them. I'm not sure what you attribute this to.
C) Stay on topic. Show me the direct correlation between my claim of "your base idea is not original" from my old post that you quoted and your claim that myself and many others fundamentally lack an understanding of 'psychopathy'. If you can not, please do not dance around the point or question. My point was that you were not the first to have the idea that JTR was a psychopath. The gist of your counter point, as I interpret it, was that you are misunderstood and down trodden. The rest sums up what I had already ascertained in the same earlier post of mine that you quoted by typing the 5 words "by the more common definition", i.e. I already pointed that out.
A little later in your post, you typed:
"A. No previous Ripperologist has ever published a well-articulated solution of the case, logically analyzing all the evidence under the central idea of psychopathy. If such a solution has ever been published, please give its title here. I am the first person to publish a whole thought or complete idea of the case as an example of psychopathy"
If memory serves me, there was no such diagnosis until well after the ripper murders. I even believe your boy Cleckly was the one who coined the phrase 'psychopath'. Up until then, Philippe Pinel's 'insainity without delirium' was more commonly used. My point? Just because it wasn't labeled 'psychopathy' doesn't mean it wasn't considered by someone at some point. Lest we forget that you also haven't published anything other than your summary yet. Most of us are still at the "WTF did he just say?" phase of inquiry. Publication comes much later and classically involves an editor and publishing house, etc. To answer your question, I know of none off hand. Then again, it's quite early and I am not well versed in anything at 6 AM. If you'll give me some time to research it properly, I'll get you a proper answer.
For clarification: I never said that you wouldn't be the first person to publish your idea, I said you were not the first person to have conceived the idea. I was sure you could recognize the difference. Publication does not a correct solution make. You should be aware of this by now.
In another earlier post you typed:
"Please understand that psychiatrists making diagnoses are extensively trained, and have considerable experience with many different kinds of disturbed people to support them. Diagnostic criteria of any epoch in the profession are not alone intended to give the full picture to enable a diagnosis. Many normal people have some of the characteristics of a psychopath. A psychiatrist has got a person that he can tell is disturbed by his experience, and by the history of the patient, sitting in front of him when he makes a diagnosis. It is a mistake to move the diagnostic criteria out of this context."
I think, no, I do, I DO agree with you here :P
If, by your own admission, a psychiatrist requires years of experience and patient history in front of him to make a sound diagnosis, how can you make one about a suspect you haven't even decided upon yet and without years of experience and patient history?
Look David, you know we love you like a fat kid loves cake but you are going to have to do a little better than this.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
David,
Your condemnation of Dan's use of the word psycho seems as if you didn't read the post or understand it. He makes a distinction between the popular use of the word and the scientific use -the quotation marks add to the fact that he doesn't, as you suggest, think it is a psychiatric term.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
1.“Honestly, the behaviours and thinking you attribute to your killer are not consistent with a psychopath. They are, however, consistent with a delusional type thought disorder, such as schizophrenia. When I say you don't understand the material, I don't mean you are not capable of understanding it, just that you need to read the material and the examples more carefully. However, the examples you give demonstrate you do not yet understand the difference between psychopathic type thinking and delusional type thinking. As a simply guideline (which, like any "rule of thumb" will not be clinically and/or scientifically acceptable) think of psychopaths as the embodyment of "self centredness". They want, they get angry and frustrated if their wants are interfered with, and they don't care what anyone else may think or feel.
>>No, this is the way a nominal personality would be self-centered. This is how you or I would be self-centered, if that would be the way we were. A psychopath is self-centered in a vastly more radical way than this. His self-centeredness essentially represents his total disability for personal growth. Unlike you and I, he basically has the same personality through life that he came into life with—that of an infant. His psychiatric problem is profound, incurable, and grave, his irrational position in the world as undefined as division by zero. He is capable of any extreme maladjustment to life or misjudgment concerning his personal affairs—utterly fearless as small children are, he may attempt anything, including plunging himself headlong into a wall of fire, believing confidently and foolishly that he will emerge from the other side unburned. Anger in psychopaths is mostly an illusion in our minds—they may show superficial signs of anger, or do terrible things to others that would indicate that a great anger reaction is taking place in the case of a nominal personality, but they have essentially merely memorized the expression pattern as shown by others—they feel little or nothing of the emotion themselves. They are quite “irkable” in the petty sense, peevish, capable of quick superficial vexation, and “piqueable.” They may set themselves off on incredible, irrational tangents or projects, directly harmful to themselves and others, when an experience keying off these reactions happens to them.
2.“Now, your example of the fellow asking for a letter from his ex-wife? That's hard to believe he would do it, right? Why? Because it's hard to believe he would think his ex-wife would be pre-disposed to help him in this manner. But, he doesn't consider what she may think and/or feel, and that's what his mistake is. He didn't decide "If I write a letter to her that says 'I really enjoy getting mail' she will know that what I want her to do is write a letter to my girl friend and explain to her how much I love her"; that would be delusional, the more he believes this hidden message will be understood just because he wants it to be understood, the more delusional that person is.”
The psychopath in question above has an infinitely greater problem than simply not considering what his abandoned wife may think or feel—he is asking someone to do something for him in a situation in which he has every reason to believe that she will react in a way totally fatal to his very plan in writing to her in the first place, but he writes to her anyway in direct violation of this consciousness. The awareness of how she must react, despite that he is nondelusive and fully capable of understanding what is going to happen, is nevertheless of so little consequence to him, in his supreme arbitrary self-confidence, that it drops right out the back of his head, and he is not aware of it. A fundamental and grave irrationality of personality is in effect, a perversity of the very tissue of life itself. It is like a mouse deliberately running into the mouth of a cat in full awareness of what the consequences to it will be. There is self-centered, and there is obtusely irrational self-centered. The psychopath is in the latter category. In the case of JtR‘s messages, he is making the same crazy irrational mistake as the psychopath above. He plans to communicate, he has to do so discretely so the police don’t get wise to him, he is fully aware of the immense unliklihood that his targets will understand the message, but because their understanding the messages is what he wants, his awareness of this falls out the back of his head and he is not aware of it, and so he plunges ahead, into the wall of fire, in a manner fatal to his very intentions in writing the messages in the first place, since he depends on the understanding of the messages on the part of the targets in order to get the money. The psychopath has problems hugely greater than simple neuroses, he has a cosmic problem, a defect in consciousness itself, in direct violation of the logical law of noncontradiction. This is why he repeatedly engages in self-contradictory, self-ruinous, self-defeating actions. Mr. Norder’s recent dictum that there is nothing in the diagnostic criteria pointing to a self-contradictory personality in psychopaths is the most incompetent possible interpretation of the condition.
3. “Meaning, as our rule of thumb, delusional thinking is "magic thinking". If the thoughts and/or plans require "something magical" to happen in order to make the connection between "action" and "goal", then you've got delusional thinking. So for example, if the killer thinks "I'll make up some marks that could be used by a tailor, cut them onto this woman's face, and the butcher-fellow I recognised will get a description of these marks (how? well, he just will - magic), understand they are my version of tailor's marks (of course he will, he's a butcher after all- magic), understand how I intend these tailor marks to be interpreted (how? my desire will transmit the interpretation? again, magic), and then will realise he shouldn't turn me in or his family will be shunned by all of the European Jewish community" (because, well, that's what I think and my desires get transmitted by - magic), well, what rule of thumb fits that?”
>>A very simple rule of thumb fits that. The psychopath is pathologically unaware that magic is required for him to get what he wants. Here’s another example straight from Cleckley:
“(The psychopath under study exhibited) a persistent tendency to ask for (employment) recommendations from those...(former employers he) had every reason to know (could not have) furnish(ed) anything but...negative report(s) fatal to...(his) plans.” (Hervey M. Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity,” page 352.)
The above man was extensively examined psychiatrically and found to be totally free of psychosis or delusions. This pattern regarding recommendations from former employers is repeated ad infinitum in the psychiatric files of thousands of psychopaths. Sam is hired by Company A, and immediately valuable items of every description, such as tools, inventory and cash from the safe, start disappearing from the business. After three weeks, evidence points in the general direction of Sam, and he is asked to open the trunk of his car. Inside $10,000 worth of micrometers is found, traceable directly to the business’ tool crib. Sam is fired. Two weeks later, Company A receives a request for an employment recommendation from Company B. Sam is trying to get a new job, and thinks nothing of using Company A as a positive reference! Sam has every reason on earth to believe that there is no way Company A is going to do anything but point out to Company B that Sam stole them blind, and should not be hired. Thus Sam is engaging in logically self-contradictory behavior, based on the proposition that Sam personally is simply always going to get what he wants. The awareness that Company A is positively going to torpedo his job hunt falls right out of the back of Sam’s head, and he is unaware of it. Although this kind of episode would at first seem to point to massive delusions on the level of total cranial emptiness on the part of Sam, examination reveals a normal mental state. Psychiatry still has no adequate explanation for this type of phenomenon, nor a satisfactory classification system for it.
4. “Self centred thinking may expect people to respond to requests in ways that are unrealistic, and the request itself may be unrealisitic, but the request and what is the desired action are one in the same. The information is clearly transmitted. With delusional thinking, the "transmitted signal" and the "intended signal" are often unrelated. And that is what you continually describe throughout your summary. Delusional, not psychopathic.
>>What you describe here may be either delusional or psychopathic. If the subject is tested and he shows delusions, then the diagnosis would likely be psychosis, schizophrenia, etc. If no delusions, then likely psychopathy.
5. “Basically, everything would probably work better if you simply started from "delusional" killer. You could keep your version of what they must have thought, and pretty much claim any thought you want without need of having to prove it. And,.... oh, wait, that would mean your suspect becomes Aaron Kosminski. And that would mean you didn't solve the case first. Oh well, given that your summary contradicts itself, you still haven't solved it so what's changed?”
There is almost no way Aaron Kosminski, certainly a paranoid schizophrenic, could have committed the Whitechapel murders. He is inadequately violent, seemingly preoccupied with obeying his inner voice that tells him not to accept food from others or work, and he is dirty and disgusting. It is very difficult to imagine how these things fit in with what JtR did.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
“Jugendwerk means "youth work", it's not necessarily Christian youth work. You just happened to find it on a web page related to Christianity. The word itself, and if Juwe is a normal contraction, does necessarily refer to "sunday school children", converting Jews to Christianity, or any of the other things you've assumed and presented as facts.”
>>I am well aware that the contraction Juwe does not necessarily refer to Christian youth work! I stated as much in the Summary when one of the translations I gave of it was “youth organization,” a non-Christian usage. You are ripping what I write totally out of context, conferring on me a reputation as if I were trying to deceive my readers. I am well aware that anybody can look up anything I write about, and I am willing to respond to all questions here. Just because not ALL uses of Juwe are not Christian does not mean that SOME uses of it as Christian are not factual! I said in the Summary that Christian organizations use it for their Christian youth programs, which is entirely true! Jugendwerk in fact has a number of meanings in German beyond youth work of any kind. I fully realize that I am selecting only one of them for the meaning of the graffitus. I am well aware that the meaning of the word Juwe has NOTHING TO DO with converting Jews to Christianity, and I did not imply that it did in the Summary!!!! This meaning of the term applies exclusively to the graffitus in context as I elucidate in the Summary!!!! If Juwe correctly referred to converting Jews to Christianity, the psychopath would not have chosen to use it in the graffitus, as it would possibly give his plan away to the police!!! He chose the term and malapropistically used it only because its meaning would be obscure to anyone who wouldn’t think of it in the fearful way the witnesses would, if the witnesses thought of the graffitus and their possible role in it at all!!!
All you rape gang thugs out there: Although I make no “concessions,” if you can’t swallow the classification of the marks on Eddowes’ face as tailoring symbols, Martin Kosminski’s naturalization certificate, or the contraction Juwe, throw them all in the toilet and flush them down. My theory does not depend on them; they are purely ancillary to it. My position on the case evidence is exactly the same with or without these interpretations.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
Hi,
So David proudly found the explanation of the word Juwe on a web site and gave us excruciatingly/codecendingly detailed instructions on how to find it and excruiciatingly more detail on how proud and grateful we should be to someone who explains the mystery that's haunted us for 100 years.
To quote:
...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!
In response Christian Jaud (strangely enough a European sounding name to me?) simply replied...
To quote:
I just sent an eMail to them, asking for information about the existence of the Jugendwerk and especially the abbreviation "Juwe" in 1888.
Will post the answer as soon as I get it.
To which David replied, and I can only assume his logic engine was working overtime here at break neck speed...
To quote:
I would think that a Mennonite youth organization is hardly the place to reliably find word derivations--you would perhaps need a concordance, old dictionaries, and similar reference works. You might want to consult a professor of German at a big university. I would not trust the answer you get from the Mennonites one way or the other--they in fact may not be able to even read English well enough to understand your question.
Huh, they may not be able to read English? Is this a joke? I certainly found it funny.
Why would a European (German actually if you check Christian's profile) want to write to a German web site in English?
Is this the level of David's logical abstraction?
Assuming a German would write to another German in English?
Huh? A Menonite youth organization is hardly the place to reliably find word derivations?
Yet it's OK to believe their 20th century web site reflects word usage of the 19th Century.
Want to run that by me again I seem to be missing something here.
Is it rude to point out this post? Not really as David does pride himself in the power of the brain to assimilate a few facts and draw logical conclusions from them.
It's a pity therefore he just proved _his_ logic doesn't always win and coming second doesn't really count when you're claiming to have _solved_ a case using only logic.
Is it rude to point out this post? Not really as Christian's attempt to help resolve this issue is resoundly, resolutely, rudely, and arrogantly rebutted to the effect that whatever reply he gets is to be considered meaningless. Not even a thank you if you please.
So David has the concordance? has checked old dictionaries, other references, German professors? NO. In reply to Dan who simply asked...
To Quote:
Do you have any proof that the term "Juwe" existed back in 1888?
David gives a wishy-washy, feeble, inadequate...
To quote:
Jugendwerk very likely did, Juwe would have certainly been used as a contraction at least in some places in Germany. I’m looking through German literature of the day for as much
concordance as I can find for the Thesis. In any event, my interpretation of the graffitus is the same.
A long answer which basically says "No, but I'm still looking."
Despite the fact that there are 3 posts in this thread from Germans saying they've found no such evidence and why is he using this interpretation, he still instists that it "would have _certainly_ been used.. in some places..."
What evidence is there for even that statement Mr Radka?
If the existence of Jugendwerk only "likely existed" how can we logically believe a contraction of it "certainly" existed?
Name me one source that I or our German posters can check for the contraction of Jugendwerk as Juwe in the late 19th century.
Not two, not three examples just ONE, you are _certain_ aren't you?
You wouldn't just be bluffing would you? You do believe in concordance don't you rather than just rely on a contemporary German web site?
Just type the reference - t-i-t-l-e, d-a-t-e, a-u-t-h-o-r, it's so simple, just press the keys, really you'll feel so much better for it.
Another poster got it right that David was probably Googling and found the word and his logic got the better of him and he's too afraid now to just admit that it was the one and only source and he's extrapolated a web site from 2004 back to the 1880's.
This, David proudly tells us, is his "rational" contribution to Ripperology - the meaning of the word Juwe.
Strangely when asked about it he simply can't back it up immediately and has to admit he has NO concordance and has to now start looking for some evidence no matter how paltry - it possibly wasn't a cornerstone of the thesis but now he's on
his bended knees sobbing and resorting to "In any event, my interpretation of the graffitus is the same." yah-boo-sucks.
David, it's obviouly a BS explanation or you'd post the reference.
Perhaps in your original post you meant to type:
Do you realize how many other people nimbly went right by this word
or even:
Do you realize how I went dumbly right to this word
I still think Davids idea makes for a nice story but so does the Royal Conspiracy - go figure.
Cheerio,
ian
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 9:16 pm: | |
1.“I too believe that Radka is mixing things up a bit here. He is clearly talking about a delusional character. I also want to point out to Mr Radka, regarding his comments on psychopathy as a relevant foundation for criminal activity, that we have a lot of psychopaths that are not criminal, but are using their "abilities" in other areas, like in politics and the business world. Radka's interpretation of psychopathy (clearly injected by the thoughts of Cleckley) is not only simplified, it is also based on the old notion that only those who commits violent crimes fits into the category.
>>a. I’ve posted recently that a psychopath is non-delusive but very irrational personality, fully capable of doing what I say JtR did.
b. I cannot agree that there is any one type of person that we could call the “criminal type,” and then formulate predicates based on that. If you want to say that Ripperology ought to start with the “criminal type” and go from there, which is apparently what you prefer in view of your ideas on the bastardized notion of “lust murderer,” then I think you are starting with a mishmash of different types, not anything singular, and you will inevitably wind up in confusion. I think you’d have to be a person who LIKES confusion to do that. Many different types of people commit crimes.
c. I am not claiming, as you say, “psychopathy is a relevant foundation for criminal activity.” I am claiming only that it is a relevant foundation for JACK THE RIPPER’S actions, based on the evidence of his particular case. I certainly would not want to assume that all criminals are psychopaths, because a considerable number of incarcerated persons have been found not to be.
d. My ideas on psychopathy are NOT in agreement primarily with those of Hervey M. Cleckley, but rather with those of David T. Lykken. As I will bring out in the Thesis, Cleckley’s notion of masked psychosis is unverified. Lykken’s idea of natural resistance to socialization is much more objective and satisfactory, albeit all notions of what psychopathy is must still be considered tentative or works in progress at this point.
e. I cannot imagine why you say that the concept of psychopathy I use is “based on the old notion that only those who commit violent crimes fit into the category.” This has never been any psychiatrist’s notion, as far as I can see, and it is certainly not my idea. Anybody reading Cleckley, Hare or Lykken, the three sources I use in the Summary, can clearly see this. Few of their case histories deal with violent psychopaths.
2. “Psychopathy is a complex condition with many variables, that is hard to grasp even for noted psychologists. There is a valid reason for why many in the field are in disputes and have contradictive opinions regarding the character traits of those who have this "disorder" and why they often are fooled by these individuals. And that is mainly why psychopathy (or rather, ASPD) -- like many other psychological conditions -- is worthless to use as a foundation when you're performing a criminal investigation, apart from the fact that it is all theory to begin with.”
>>Psychiatrists sometimes disagree and change their profession’s ideas concerning what psychopathy is or where it comes from, and they have nested it together in terms of classification with antisocial types in general and claim that it doesn’t exist separately, but they agree that there is a certain, specific, extremely hardened type of personality out there, they recognize that it exists, and they know it when they have enough information about someone to see it in him. Understanding WHAT it is is a different matter than THAT it is. What I do in the Thesis is develop this existential proposition from case histories, then show that JtR was the same personality type by the case evidence, label the condition what you will. Ripperology is NOT a criminal investigation, because it’s 116 years old and there is no new evidence to obtain. It is an exegesis.
3. “But since Radka believes that the relatively outdated Cleckley has all the answers, this makes further discussions on the subject rather difficult.”
>>I don’t believe that. Further discussions on the subject are very possible, and welcomed.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
