|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1957
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:36 pm: |       |
Palmer,
Yes, but you are addressing the question that are of least interest to me. I am not here to defend the checklists -- I know that they are two-dimensional. But that is the problem with all checklists and manuals. What else is new?
I am mainly interested in Radka's failing description of a psychopath and nothing else. My point is that Radka's character is an even wider charicature of a psychopath than what is referred to in the checklists and that he stretches in all kinds of direction to make his conduct fit the story.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 190
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Mephisto wrote:
"I'd like to clear up a few of the misconceptions"
By pretending that things are wrong when they aren't and adding some more howling mistakes of your own? Funny that.
"Norder, yourself and a few others (here after-the Norder Group) have claimed that both the DSM-VI manual, and Dr. Hare's PCL-R checklist are appropriate diagnostic instruments to use as comparative tools to measure the value of Radka's description of psychopathy."
This is incorrect. I make no claims about "the DSM-VI manual" as there's no such thing. The APA's Diagnostic and Statistic Manual is on version four, not six. This "Diagnostic and Statistic Manual-6 manual" you speak of does not exist.
I'd normally just chalk this up to a typo on your part, except you mentioned it five different times in your post and never once got it right. That shows a pretty apparent lack of experience in this area.
"One thing I find troubling about the Norder Group's arguments, is that they failed to mention how they used those instruments to arrive at their conclusion, i.e., that Radka's description is incorrect. "
Ah, but it has been explained very clearly even so people with no background can understand. David claimed an absolute: that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry, as they don't experience emotions. To disprove an absolute statement, all one needs to do is provide one counter example. You yourself did this. Sarah provided a personal counter example. A number of people did it also.
I went beyond that and showed that not only is not impossible, but it's extremely common... and in fact so common that both the DSM and PCL-R use it as one of their criteria for deciding if someone is a psychopath or not.
(Then Mephisto tries to B.S. his way through by asking us to provide a peer review process for our conclusions, data coding, etc., ignoring that fact that the DSM and the PCL-R were created using peer review process, data coding, and all that.)
"I asked Norder for his insight regarding the connection between cultural diversity, and psychopathy, but he refuses to answer"
And I'll refuse any attempt by someone who clearly has no clue what he's talking about acting as if he's in a position to call the shots and trying to derail the conversation onto an unrelated point.
"he claims he has a problem discussing the aspects of Dr. Hare's study that show cultural diversity as an important evaluative factor"
I never claimed any such thing. I said I refuse to take the bait on such an obvious attempt to try to change the topic. If you think somehow that cultural diversity means that you'll somehow prove David right when he says that it's impossible for a psychopath to experience anger, please, by all means, embarass yourself further by making that argument.
"I guess it has something to do with his misguided ideas about how the PCL-R is actually used."
You haven't shown that you are all capable of understanding how it's used. You haven't even shown basic competency in introductory psychology. I've had advanced classes specifically on the topics being discussed. You and David are the last people here who should be making any statements about other people supposedly being misguided.
"An alternative answer to your conjecture might be that the DSM-VI is distinguished for its unreliability, uncertainty, and inaccuracy (Hart et. al. 1991)."
First up, Hart sells books and diagnostic material that competes with the DSM IV, so you wouldn't exactly expect him to say that the DSM is fine and everyone can ignore his books.
Secondly, for the umpteenth time, attacking the DSM doesn't help you because Hart ALSO says psychopaths are violently angry people, thus also proving David wrong. You keep banging the same drum but fail to appreciate that the person you are holding up as superior to the DSM also describes psychopaths in ways that are completely opposite of the way David describes them.
"If you expect intelligent people to believe"
And you and David are also about the last people who should be talking about what intelligent people believe, based upon your inane and self-contradictory comments here.
"One thing that lends his effort more credibility than yours, however, is the fact that he wrote his ideas down so you could criticize them, and so far, the Norder Group has failed to return the favor."
OK, you're seriously living in denial here. LOTS of people have written down their ideas here. You've certainly tried to criticize them. For you now to claim that nobody has responded in writing is sticking your head in the sand.
"For starters, why don't you tell the Casebook readers on what pages we can find the pertinent information that will support the many unsubstantiated arguments you've made?"
Here we go again...
First up, they aren't unsubstantiated. For you to still try this tactic just shows how stubbornly ignorant you are on the topic.
A number of posters have given you websites directly quoting the relevant texts. You could find the same thing on hundreds of other websites, textbooks and so forth in a matter of minutes if you chose to do so.
Furthermore, the DSM-IV and PCL-R are organized so it's really easy to find information. In the DSM, we know we're looking for Antisocial Personality Disorder, so you flip toward the back of the book to the personality disorder section, see the name listed there, and the short list of diagnostic criteria are right there, short and to the point. And, heck, the PCL-R is a short document solely dedicated to one diagnosis, so you don't even have to flip to the right section, it's just there.
Asking for a page number in these reference manuals is akin to not accepting the definition of a word unless someone provides you with the page number it can be found on in a dictionary. I'm sorry, but if you feel the need to go look it up in a primary source and ignore the hundreds of secondary sources, even you ought to be able to find it within a minute or two even without a page number.
Asking for a page number as if that could somehow imply that it's not a real fact is about the weakest tactic you applied yet.
Your main strategy from the first time you showed up here has been to expect your critics to jump through increasingly pointless hoops (2-3 page essays, debates on philosophy and cultural diversity, etc.) and then try to belittle them for not performing tricks at the snap of your fingers.
Worse than that, you try to ignore the fact that all the references brought up prove David wrong. Most of the time you don't even try to have references, and when you do make a small effort you find ones that either don't even talk about the same topic or actually prove you wrong.
Don't you get tired of trying to pretend you know what you are talking about? I'd imagine that being proven wrong so often and so thoroughly must be rough on you. Why don't you take a break, maybe go read something about psychology instead of trying to bluff your way through, and come back later when you can add something worthwhile?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 191
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:55 pm: | |
Since the arguing is getting everyone off the point, let's make this simple:
David:
In light of:
1) The American Psychiatric Association's DSM criteria showing people with Antisocial Personality Disorder (their term for psychopathy) as usually violently aggressive and angry, and
2) Dr Robert Hare (who you call the world's leading expert on the topic) in his PCL-R saying psychopaths are explosively angry, AND
3) Mephisto claiming he found a professional journal article saying that some psychopaths are violently angry.
Do you or do you not still say (as you did while trying to defend your Jack the Ripper theory) that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry?
Mephisto:
With the same info, was David correct when he said that it's impossible for psychopaths to be angry?
Simple questions. One or the other. David stated an absolute, so there's no room for hedging. Either his absolute is right or wrong, there's no maybe on "impossible." No avoiding the topic. Just answer so we all know where both of you clearly stand on that issue.
And one way or another that will end the debate right there.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 683
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
This is asinine. Psychopaths are capable of getting angry. Everyone (even those who would pretend not to know this for whatever personal motivation they might have...stubbornness, theory falling apart, pride, whatever...)knows this. Psychopaths can get angry. Period, the end.
 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
ps David,
Americans racist? No I've not noticed any racism from the american registered users on this board, perhaps thats another one of those generalisations i was mentioning earlier.
pps long way down was it??
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:06 am: | |
ps David,
Americans racist? No I've not noticed any racism from the american registered users on this board, perhaps thats another one of those generalisations i was mentioning earlier.
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
Well that was an error on my part feel free to ignore post 630.
one of those days again
JDP
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Ian wrote:
1. “{(Mr. Radka} starts with the case evidence which obviously for him includes JtR himself sending the Lusk letter, builds a logical argument (several actually) to test against the case evidence and one works best.”
>>THIS IS NOT MY METHOD. I DO NOT start out with the assumption that JtR sent the Lusk letter, as anyone who read the Summary paying any attention to it can see. The Lusk letter comes in only after many other evidentiary verifying points are made, involving the scheme to get the reward.
2. “Because he now has a logical argument to explain the Lusk letter was from JtR, it must now be empirical case evidence not a fraud or medical student prank.”
>>You Brits just can’t imagine what rationalism is, can you? All you need do is cross the channel and you’ll find millions of people living by it. No, I don’t magically transform a logical argument into empirical evidence. It remains a logical argument.
3. “How can you have the temerity to suggest the Lusk letter wasn't from JtR? He has a theory which explains it all.”
>>Isn’t that what life is all about? Isn’t that why there were men on the moon, penicillin, etc?
4. “Methinks he either is joshing or he's up so close and personal he has lost the ability to stand back and see what he's built. The logic is only good it seems when it's all encomapssing - and as Mephisto would say, it does fit all the historic evidence so it must be good.”
>>Mephisto says it HAS MERIT, not that it must be good. Can’t you put on your own thinking cap for once?
5. “Its quantity that counts not quality - even where the case evidence is weak (Tabram) throw it in and if the logical argument can cover it then it's a good argument which then proves the evidence you started with beyond a shadow of doubt (Note: I suspect David has no doubt Tabram is considered empirical case evidence and beyond doubt)”
>>You need to develop a sense of what empirical evidence is good for, and what it isn’t. You Brits tend to think that the only good is empiricism, and if it doesn’t work, well, then we just need more empiricism. THERE is where the quantity counts more than quality, not in my theory.
6. “I understand there has to be some playing with the evidence and scientific method should encourage one to build an argument as such. In the real world we can often test/retest a theory, but when a case is 115+ years old, the evidence you start with is in dispute, the theory has no predictive power and no empirical testing method, it all comes down to a logical game and advances ripperology in no definable way I can see.”
>>Congratulations, you have just accepted my method, which fundamentally addresses all these problems.
7. “Apart from an academic viewpoint I can't see when one achieves logical satisfaction from building a castle upon (possible) quick sand. Even if you have to have a chronology of sub plots and motivation (to remove Aaron, front Leather Apron, claim the reward) as long as they can be encompassed by an umbrella of psycopathy the three fragmented motivations become united in a great scheme.”
>>What is inherently wrong with an academic viewpoint? Why shouldn’t we consider or imagine ourselves sitting in professorial chambers? I don’t see any “great scheme,” I see only the typical behavior of a psychopath, the same as perhaps millions of others, responding foolishly to external factors. And these “sub plots” tie directly into the case evidence, don’t they?
8. “The Dear Boss letter... well perhpas there were actually four sub plots and motivations. Throw as much "evidence" as you like (even remove evidence - tailoring marks) and it all still stands as 100% consistent as far as I can tell.
9. “David and Mephisto talk about some "empirical" case evidence as if we really know which parts are true and which are false (in the sense they may point to another killer of Tabram, Stride or Kelly). David builds a logical argument which covers everything including the kitchen sink (or whistling teapot) to him it's a game I think.”
>>Under empiricism, it is okay to say, “We really don’t know” when we lack empirical information in a given area. But that doesn’t mean that we are compelled to accept an empirical paradigm for our thinking. Other modes of thought may offer us different capabilities and restrictions. It is NOT okay to say “We really don’t know” under rationalism, if we have enough empirical information to build a holistic theory. For countless decades Ripperologists have been saying, “We really don’t know” as if it were a mark of their truthfulness, distinction and honesty. But it is really a symptom of their degeneracy, slothfulness and too-easy acceptance of limitations.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
Norder,
"Your being crapful again" dude (Ally: July 11, 7:32 pm). The following two examples will clearly demonstrate that your arguments are intellectually dishonest. These models are typical of the distortions, and deceptive posturing you regularly use to misrepresent those arguments, like mine for example, which contain ideas and concepts that test your acuity.
Example-1)
On July 27, at 10:57 pm, you wrote: "explosive anger is one of the defining characteristic of a psychopath" (Norder: 2004, my emphasis). You offered no citations or quotes as evidence to support your position.
On July 28, at 10:46 pm, I wrote: "This point is significant, because it destroys Norder's claim that Radka's conceptualization of psychopathy lies wholly outside the broad range of symptoms of the disorder, i.e., 'explosive anger is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath', when in fact it is only characteristic of some psychopaths" (Norder: July 27, 10:57 pm) (Mephisto: 2004).
On July 31, at 7:28 pm, you wrote: "David earlier claimed that it's *impossible* for a psychopath to be angry. I said that it's not only possible, but it's very likely. Now Mephisto comes along and says only some psychopaths are explosively angry" (Norder: 2004).
Norder, you're such a loser, you can't even keep your lies straight anymore. In your July 27, 10:57 pm post you don't claim that psychopathic anger is "possible" or "very likely"; you claim that it's "characteristic of a psychopath", i.e., a characteristic of all psychopaths.
You immediately try to hide your blunder, by using the same asinine distortion you always use to misrepresent my arguments. Fortunately, your reasoning is so crude and pedestrian that you haven't fooled more than a handful of people.
You wrote: "Hello, Mephisto, you just proved David wrong. David said it was impossible for a psychopath to be angry. You admit that some are explosive angry and present a professional source to try to back it up. Some (even though it's actually most, but some is fine) being explosively angry means that "impossible to be angry" is completely wrong" (ibid).
Hello. Earth to Rocky Norder, come-in Mr. Bullschist. I'm not arguing Radka's concept of psychopathic anger. I am arguing that your claim that "explosive anger is one of the defining characteristic of a psychopath" is wrong (Norder: July 27, 10:57 pm, my emphasis). If you spent less time playing with your goat*, and more time trying to reason with my arguments, you wouldn't look like a big horses ass.
I think it must be obvious to everyone by now, that the real reason you don't use quotes and citations, is so you don't have to deal with what I, or anyone else has actually written. You can just make up whatever the hell you please, and hope that you're sharp enough to sneak it past us. Wrong again Rocky.
*See Norder: July 25, 9:25 pm.
Example-2)--
This is what I wrote: "Patrick, et. al. set up an experiment to test their hypothesis, i.e., the response that normally accompanies imagery during emotional stimulations, is deficient in psychopaths. The test used a two group, pre-test, post-test comparative research design to determine the reactions of 'low-and high-psychopathy groups' to stimuli (ibid). (Mephisto: July 28, 10:46 pm, my emphasis).
Whenever I confront you with an argument that demands that you draw from that great well of knowledge you claim to have, you respond by redirecting the challenge to an organization, or person who obviously isn't involved in this discussion.
This is how you responded: "Mephisto then namedrops a single journal article (as if that could possibly dispute the people at the American Psychological Association who wrote the DSM, or Dr. Hare, who David admits is the current world expert) about fear image processing" (ibid).
Why are you still trying to con the Casebook readers with this idiotic misdirection scheme. Don't you think it's a little late in the game to divert their attention away from the glaring error you made on July 27th? You claimed that "explosive anger is one of the defining characteristic of a psychopath", and then you tried to deny that you wrote that statement by claiming that I have to pretend you said "explosive anger" is characteristic of ALL psychopaths. Uh........excuse me,......Mr. Bullschist,......I don't have to pretend anything, you did say it. It's right there in black and white. Why don't you just admit you're wrong, stop all this nonsense about "superior qualifications" that you obviously don't have, and go to plan "B" (ibid). How stupid do you think the Casebook readers are? Do you really think you can fool all of them, all of the time. You lost whatever ability you had, to trade on your personality when you got a little snippy with Mr. Souden, and he told you to shove it up your......nose. You can't trade on your intelligence because you made yourself look like a babbling fool by mismanaging a simple argument. How many people do you think are interested in subscribing to a magazine, edited by a guy who isn't clever enough to distinguish his ass from a dirt aperture?
Let me make it clear to you Norder; I'm not challenging the "people at the American Psychological Association who wrote the DSM", and I'm not challenging Dr. Hare or the PCL-R", I am challenging your retarded arguments (Norder: July 27, 10:57 pm).
This weird idea you have, that you've somehow proved you're argument by using a diagnostic instrument, is based on nothing more than a passing acquaintance with psychopathy. Clearly, you're totally unfamiliar with how the PCL-R is used. I hate to tell you this Norder, but your superficial explanations and vague generalizations about the PCL-R, are not the characteristics that one normally associates with the "superior qualifications" you claim to possess. In fact, your misrepresentations and distortions are an unmistakable display of your inadequacy.
A basic tenet of social psychology is (A Norder Citation), and I'll simplify this so you can understand it Norder, if an insecure person feels threatened by something or someone, they will react negatively to that thing or person. Therefore, a person like yourself, with an inferior understanding of something, say......a diagnostic instrument, will use every opportunity to disparage a person who has a deeper understanding of that instrument, e.g., you got on my case because I transposed two letters in DSM-IV. You also mocked my use of citations, by characterizing the practice as name-dropping. Norder, name-dropping is you telling us that Dr. Hare is a personal friend of yours, quoting his publications in a written argument is citing sources. For your information Einstein, you're giving the readers some insight into your personal ethics with that little gem of reasoning, it says that you got your "superior credentials" by plagiarizing other people's ideas (Norder: 2004). Is that what you did in college?
And speaking of college, you still haven't answered my questions: "Do you have a college degree or not? and, Have you ever worked in the field of psychology? I hope the sum of the
"superior qualifications" that you've been claiming is more than just the three classes you allegedly took at Wal-Mart U. Let's face it bud, if that's all you got going for you, then your ego is writing checks, your know-how can't cash.
And your ego will bankrupt your soul my brother. It is clear, to everyone who's read your tiresome dialogue, that you felt you needed a background in psychology to give your ego babble some credibility. You needed to make it appear that the ideas you gleaned from the Internet, were learned in a university classroom. But you failed to consider the possibility that someone with a degree in psychology would be able to see through your charade. You don't need three classes in psych. to argue a claim on this thread Norder. Mr. Andersson has aptly demonstrated that he can make his point, and defend his position on the nature of psychopathy, without any advanced courses in psychology. He states his amateur status right upfront, and then argues his point from that perspective. His honesty, and his independent study have strengthened his ability to give a good account of himself. One advantage he has over you is that he doesn't have your ego to contend with. And he doesn't whine like a little weasel either.
I love it when you whine Norder. Mommy, mommy, that boy made me look so bad, I made pee pee in my pants. Don't you have any self-respect? On July 27, at 10:57 pm, you wrote: "Whether you can try to make me look bad by pretending I said they were ALL that way is pointless, because you yourself proved David wrong. Of course you were too busy trying to get at me to realize what it was you were arguing, but, hey, that's not a big surprise" (Norder: 2004).
Norder, Norder, Norder, tsk, what am I going to do with you. When are you going to realize that I don't have to try to make you look bad; you're doing a bang-up job all by yourself. Check it out everybody. His superiority complex compels him to interpret every challenge to his cockamamie ego-trip, as an attempt to make him look bad. The problem is this, his ego has made him so desparate, he has to knock people down so he can build himself up. In his mad scramble to feed this monster, he decided my learning disability was fair game. In essence he said that my transposition of I and Vee in DSM-IV, was due to an "apparent" defect I have, which he somehow claims has reduced me to the status of a defective gun bearer in a social hierarchy that only exists in his rat-infested mind (Norder: July 31, 7:28 pm). Hey Norder, I'm dyslexic, OK ice hole. And no matter how many times I looked at Vee I that night, to me it looked like I Vee. You got a problem with that? Wake up goatboy, if you didn't act like a jerk, you wouldn't make yourself look bad. Try and get this through your thick skull: This thread isn't about you. This thread is about Radka's summary. Learn to live with that.......It is reality.
If you have the goods Norder, you can always prove me wrong. Give the Casebook readers the details of how you used the PCL-R to arrive at your conclusion that Radka's description of psychopathy is wrong. It shouldn't be a big deal for a man with "superior qualifications" like you. If you know how the process works, then you can explain the details in 2 or 3 paragraphs. Come on Dr. Norder, show us how you can use those 9 credits worth of "superior credentials" you allegedly have.
(Prediction: Norder will refuse to respond on the grounds that proving that his credentials are superior, to mine is irrelevant to the topics being discussed, or some other disingenuous crap).
Mephisto
JDP
Grow up!!!
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Mr. Andersson wrote:
1.“I don't have a degree in psychology and have not taking any class whatsoever on the subject. I have only a personal interest in criminal psychology (yes, I know... I must get a life...)and am plainly an amateur. However, one does not need to be a scholar in order to put a stake through the heart of Radka's theory and his definitions of psychopathy, as well as through the wall of confused remarks by "Mephisto". First of all we must acknowledge the fact that although experts on the subject have different opinions regarding certain details concerning this very difficult "disorder", most of them agree on several major characteristics of psychopaths: shallowness, lack of empathy, manipulative and charming traits, mood swings with often sudden outbursts of rage, selfishness, a controlling conduct etc. Anybody knows this. So, Mephisto and his buddy Radka clearly thinks this is rubbish and says that Dan and others are wrong. Fine. It doesen't help Radka's suspect character one bit.”
>>I absolutely do not think it is rubbish! I agree with the main line psychiatric descriptions of psychopathy 100%, and I agree with the main line empirical evidence of the Whitechapel murders 100%. All I do in my work is put the two together—I use the former to explain the latter. What could be simpler?
2.“We can of course -- as Mephisto and Radka chooses to do -- ignore the American Psychological Association's own professional diagnostic criterias in the DSM as well as Dr. Hare's checklist of psychopathy. But on what grounds? Because of Cleckley? Because of Radka the Accountant?”
I do not ignore or disagree with Dr. Hare! I do not disagree with the DSM! I do not disagree with the PCL-R! To the contrary, I use them to solve the case! I don’t believe, however, that simple checklists alone are adequate to educate a novice concerning what the disorder is. For that, you need extensive study of case histories. What does being an Accountant have to do with this?
3. “Let's all be frank here. Let's ask ourselves the question why Radka has chosen to refer and cling to Cleckley especially and then chooses to discount criterias based on other, rather distinguished sources, like the APA.”
>>I do not cling to Cleckley! Please show me specific evidence in the Summary that my interpretation of the case is inordinately Clecklean in nature. Do you even know what Cleckley did? What his basic ideas were? What kind of thinker was he—somatic, humanist, postmodernist, or Freudian? Have you got any knowledge about him at all to back up what you are saying here? If you want to say that I cling to Cleckley, please then write us a detailed summary characterizing Cleckley.
4. “Answer: because it fits his theory! This is what it is all about; namely pick-and-choose reasoning to fit "facts" into theory. Anybody can do that. Furthermore, when that is done, the door opens immediately to arguments about minimalistic details in order to win retorichal points, with dissertation posts even longer and complicated than Radka's own "summary" (which in itself is an achievement) -- which is how and why this extraordinary thread -- like the ones dealing with Maybrick -- has managed to live on way past its exporation date.”
>>The DSM and the PCL-R do not harm my theory, they help justify it. We are not talking about “minimalist details” on this thread—we are not, for example, debating the finer points of Cleckley versus the finer points of the DSM or Hare! Show us specifically where this is happening here. My theory is based on the general notion of psychopathy taken from MANY psychiatric sources, and does not lean in any one direction or the other. It is mainstream in nature. And as I’ve said before, I DISAGREE with Cleckley on his ultimate categorization of psychopathy as masked psychosis, although that doesn’t have any impact on my theory. Show us specifically what “facts I am picking and choosing to fit my theory,” as you say. Detail for us a set of attributes that you think my suspect has, but that psychopaths can’t have.
5. “The fact is, we can't, 115 years in retrospect, even know for certain that Jack the Ripper was a hard core psychopath to begin with -- there are other disorders to choose from.”
>>Many empirical points in the case evidence strongly suggest he was a psychopath and likely not suffering from or acting out of another type of disorder—that he was a classic psychopath, in other words--a factor we cannot ignore. I will allow that the Summary doesn’t present a full case for this in itself.
6. “But even if he was, Radka's character suspect goes down the drain on several points. He just does not fit the bill. I have said it before and I'll say it again; Radka's "psychopath" is a mish-mash of all thinkable retarded and violent traits in this particular context, otherwise this "psychopath" wouldn't fit the puzzle of events, criminal conduct and constructed "motives" that Radka suggests.”
>>Rubbish. You have no idea of what you are talking about—you just wind your mouth up and let it fly—you offer no points from appropriate scientific literature to back yourself up.
7. “Radka has stated that we must throw empirical and classic investigation methods out the window to solve a case that is over hundred years old. OK. So what else does he suggest instead? Fabrications and home-grown psychological "solutions", based on the "crime scene evidence". I don't think so.”
>>I do not fabricate anything. Everything I write ties into to the case evidence in a reasonable manner based on stated guiding criteria.
8. “Radka has clearly shown that his new "ground-breaking" methods are useless, since they allow us to claim practically everything we like, as long as we have a vivid imagination and are prepared to bend facts, witness statements and crime scene evidence beyond the boundaries of reality, as well as pick and choose among the sources in order to make it all fit. Not to mention writing in such a complex style, hoping that the reader will be confused enough so that the holes in the theory become invisible to the naked eye.Or maybe it's unintentional (but I wonder what's worse).”
>>Rubbish. My “methods” constrain interpretation of the empirical case evidence based on critically determined, clearly stated criteria, and this is the first time that has ever been done in Ripperology. You have got me exactly backwards in what you say. Make some claims that you think are justified under my method, will you? I’d like to show you how my method prohibits them logically.
9. “I am sorry, Radka et. al., but I prefer to stick to my old-fashioned detective methods and empirical data, and to the case evidence at hand, rather than enter the world of speculations and psychological generalizations.”
>>Okay, so give us your case solution based on this methodology right now, like I have. Can’t do it, can you? Wonder why? Because you don’t have an adequate methodology, that’s why. I hope you are more truthful in your empirical speculations than in your above post, because it is composed of nothing more than arrant lies.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Unregisteredposter wrote: “…a question: are Mephisto and D. Radka actually the same person? i.e. is Mephisto an invented pseudonym used by David to both support his theory, and to try to referee and control the tone of the argument?”
>>No, we are two unrelated men of the same generation. Mephisto’s real identity is known to many posting these boards, including myself. We don’t reveal it out of respect to him. He was a regular and very astute poster for several years before taking a leave of absence from us about three years ago. The web site’s archive CD has a wealth of his excellent perspectives on it, giving his name. Although I welcome him here heartily, he and I have had no email or other contact. He is acting entirely of his own accord concerning my work.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
1.Mr. Andersson wrote: “If psychopathy was easy to determine, then psychopaths wouldn't fool as many as they do. Not to mention how many doctors they fool to believe that they are completely healthy.”
>>Psychopaths ARE completely healthy. There is nothing the matter with their thought processes or their bodies. The health metaphor, be it mind or body directed, doesn’t fit them. They are instead constitutionally or structurally defective with respect to their identity as human beings, their personality having been syndromatically mis-developed, rather than dynamically developed.
2.“I am myself not that keen on generalizations, but after all, psychopathy -- or APD -- does involve some rather extraordinary personality traits that can't be confused with those in any other disorder; I don't agree the slightest on your description of them as being vague. When they speak of "inablity to comform to society" it clearly refers to "society" of the particular period or area that each case concerns -- not a general concept of society (because there is no such thing, as you yourself imply). This is obvious to even a ten year old.”
>>Not so fast. In order to conform to human society you must have conscience. Psychopaths have no conscience. Therefore they are not suited for life in ANY community of human beings. Therefore they would perform antisocial acts in whatever society they might find themselves, since all societies require conscientious behavior for adaptation. For example, if conforming to fourteenth century Bulgarian society means that you don’t urinate in the feudal master’s moat (or the equivalent), then a psychopath of that time and place would urinate in the feudal master’s moat. Transplanted into modern society, that same psychopath would steal a red convertible (or the equivalent), because conforming to our society means you don’t steal red convertibles. *** Entirely contrary to what Mr. Andersson ignorantly says, psychopathy often IS confused with other disorders. When a psychiatrist begins professional work with a psychopath, he may find records of such a history of gratuitous social misdeeds and maladjustment as to make the lockup ward in Belleview Psychiatric Hospital seem tame in comparison—in other words, the psychopath may have acted so foolishly for many years that his record presents the image of major psychosis. Additionally, a constitutionally antisocial person may strongly resemble an environmentally antisocial person in terms of personal characteristics. Telling the difference between ordinary madmen, sociopaths and psychopaths may be extremely difficult in given cases. That is why Dr. Hare offers his special service to the profession. *** The more one reads of Mr. Andersson, the more one realizes he will say anything that pops into his head if only it makes him feel like he knows something in saying it.
3.“And no, you're wrong; Radka's definition is clearly worse than those in the DMS. Radka don't even have a real definition -- he has created a character that suffers from all possible mental disorders packed together, and then he calls it a psychopath.”
>>FINALLY it has dawned on SOMEONE that I haven’t yet defined psychopathy here! There wasn’t enough room in the Summary, and the Thesis isn’t published yet. So since I haven’t defined it yet, why criticize me for having an inadequate definition? As of yet I have given NO definition. Frankly, I was surprised by this factor after publishing the Summary. I thought readers would ethically go ahead and read the three psychiatric books I recommended there to learn about the condition for themselves before criticizing me. But noooooooo. Now I’ve learned something, and am writing a KILLER definitional chapter. I’m going to FORCE my readers to learn.
4.“Whether it's a medical condition or not, I don't know, but most experts agree on that there really is no cure for this disorder.”
>>Permanent change in the psychopathic personality has never been observed, true. But it is possible to sandbag a psychopath. In other words, if people close to him are onto him, they can set up a strongly coercive list of behavioral rules for him, and punish him harshly for every violation. This is what happened, I believe, to Jack the Ripper. Levy and the murderer’s immediate family, probably his wife, let him know in no uncertain terms that it was either no more murdering or else they turn him in and he swings. This private conspiracy of Dark Ages-style coercion is what got him to stop. Certainly it didn’t make him a better man, however, it just got him to refrain from the specifically forbidden action of murder.
5.“Every attempt that I know of, has failed. I think it is self-written that definitions by such can't be trusted and be relied on totally. All criminals with a similar disorder are individuals. But that doesen't take away the fact that Radka's suspect is a psychological figure of his own imagination and a clear construction cooked together to fit all the different scenarios in his thesis.
>>The description of psychopathy is taken purely from psychiatric literature as an a priori, and it is not “cooked together.” It comes first. Interpretation of the case evidence according to it comes second. Mr. Andersson doesn’t have the faintest clue that I am prejudicing one by the other without my full definition of psychopathy in his hand. I can see at this point that this is going to be the real cork-popper of my work; solution of the case and revelation of JtR’s identity will be a lesser blast.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
The following posted above is offensive to me as a Christian:
"A pacifist would have been a psychopath in Ancient Rome. (Indeed, he was)."
It covertly states that Jesus Christ was a psychopath. I do not believe Jesus was a psychopath, but my Savior. I forgive the person who made this statement, but I wish he would retract it and consider the feelings of other posters in the future.
David
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
Palmer,
"...Radka's definition [psychopathy] is really no better or worst than the DSM's".
OK. But you will allow than the DSM's remit did not include, "Jack the Ripper"? There are exceptions to the rule, I guess.
That fragment of tape you found, Palmer, you know, the Ipcress File business? Scientific and Technical Section conclude it is a 'white noise loop' invented by Professor Mephisto Van Helsing. But to what purpose its end-use we cannot as yet determine. Stay on the case Palmer...and do try to be less cynical :-)
Glenn Andersson,
"...Radka's suspect is a psychological figure of his own imagination and a clear construction cooked together to fit all the different scenarios in his thesis."
Quite so! If he was'nt an accountant he would make a wonderful secret policeman...don't you think? Then again, maybe he is!
Anyway, what have you got against 'sociopaths'? I have nothing against 'crime historians' myself.
You should really get to know one, they can be great fun...and useful if you lose your keys!
Rosey :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Sarah wrote: “David, Not that I think you'll respond to this anyway as it goes against what you believe but, I happen to know someone who was clinically psychopathic and I can tell you now that one of the telling traits was that she was excessively angry. She attacked her parents for the smallest things because they made her angry, she tried to attack her brother for turning off the heating when she was cold (I mean bashing in his bedroom door to get to him, whilst yelling "I'm gonna kill you") and she yells at her mother nearly everyday over such trival things (like breathing too loud - I'm serious). So don't even try to tell me that psychopaths are not angry.”
>>As I’ve said many times beginning in April, psychopaths are incapable of any deep emotions. They are capable of cheap, tinny, shallow knock-offs of real human emotions. The psychopath you describe above is behaving typically. She is becoming pettily irked at her family members, and grossly exaggerating her reactions, the same as JtR did per my Summary, Item #7, all three phases. Neither is she angry in the way psychiatrists understand the meaning of the term anger; no powerful complex negative impulses are overcoming powerful inhibitory factors. It’s all petty pique.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
1.Mr. Palmer wrote: “…Empirical data is a good thing...”
>>It’s great work, if you can get it. No quibbling from me. But what if you can’t get it, even if you try?
2. “…Could Levy have been scared? Of course. Was he lying? There's no empircal support for this contention. So Mr. Mephisto gives an alternative interpretation to the "data", but without adding any new empircal supporting evidence to draw a sane conclusion. And there's the rub. The “empircal data” shows that Levy gave information to the police at the time of the house-to-house search, and that he duly showed up for the inquest and answered the coroner’s questions. The extant police files give no indication that Levy was anything but cooperative. It gives no indication that he ever had contact with the police again after October, 1888. Mr. Radka speculates that Levy was lying and made an appearance some months later. He speculates that Levy would have recognized Lubnowski's relatives. Interesting. Fine. But, as he is entirely wanting in empirical support for this claim (and for other elements in his theory) I am still at a loss of understanding how exactly his theory ends up telling us what “really happened” in 1888? Is this merely advertising or does he really mean it? If the former, I guess I can accept it for what it is. If the latter, he needs to explain himself. RP”
>>I “explain myself” as follows: If I were Levy and I wanted to escape the situation without losing my social position to retaliation from the Jewish community, I’d make sure to fully cooperate with the authorities to throw off all suspicion. I wouldn’t over-cooperate and I wouldn’t under-cooperate, I’d fully cooperate, and that’s just what Levy did, didn’t he? I’d tell everyone an undetectable lie, e.g., that I didn’t get a good look at the man. It is undetectable because nobody knows what anybody sees. This despite Levy’s immediate, empirical noticing of the couple based on his comments to Harris at the time. Let me ask you, if you meet me as I head out of the woods and I tell you I saw two deer in there, what empirical information do you have concerning how many deer I saw? You have NO empirical information. I might have seen zero, two or ten deer for all the empirical information you have. If later the news comes out who the man was, because he gets caught for being JtR, I can still say I didn’t get a good look at him, and be consistent in my lie, despite that many would know at that point that I know him. Where is the real risk to Levy? He takes the easiest and safest way out of a potentially disastrous situation, the same as almost everyone but the Pope (or the Chief Rabbi) would.
3. “P.S. To Mephisto. Place yourself in the scene. Why is Levy being evasive to his companions while he is leaving the Imperial Club. Or do you think Lawende and Harris were lying too? (Harris was interviewed by the papers). At the time the three Jewish blokes left the Club, they had no idea that a crime was about to be committed. Why wouldn't Levy have merely said, "Holy Smokes! That's my old friend Martin Kosminski's third cousin's husband. What is a married man doing with prosititute at 1:30 in the morning?" Instead, he mumurs something enigmatic (according to Radka) and shuffles off. Why at that moment is Levy evasive with his companions? It seems to me that Radka's thinking is retroactive. He's having Levy protect the murderer before he has even committed the murder in Mitre Square.”
>>I go with the empirical evidence exactly as it is. I base my theory on just what happened, without changing it, adding to it or subtracting from it. It is my job to explain what happened by determining why it happened, nothing more and nothing less. What Levy actually does is tell Harris that he doesn’t like the looks of the couple standing at the head of Church Passage despite their being simply just another John and Mary couple and their doing nothing untoward, an absurdity of expression on his part. Levy then tells Harris “the court should be watched,” meaning Mitre Square, presaging the crime that in fact soon after took place there. Levy then clams up and says nothing further. What am I as an interpreter to make of this? Apparently, Levy is appalled at seeing someone he knows with a hooker in an obviously compromising situation and blurts, but he thereupon recovers and gets out of the conversational faux pas without revealing anything further, e.g., that he knows the man, what the man’s name is, who he is related to, etc. If you were Levy and I were Harris, Mr. Palmer, and you told me you knew that John, and/or what his name was, I’d hold you in contempt for the rest of my life for being an indiscrete man. I’d never trust you with any privileged information about myself, fearing you’d give it away the first chance you had, and I’d basically try to avoid you thereafter. This social risk factor would be abundantly clear to a man of Levy’s age and experience, and is probably the main reason why he recovered and shut up. In addition, Levy may have had some notion that some kind of crime might be committed if the person he knew were a psychopath, because psychopaths are very unreliable people who repeatedly engage in antisocial actions, and his being with a hooker under those circumstances (hookers carry cash) would be a good opportunity for him. Levy might have worried, albeit far short of suspecting the man were JtR, that he might snatch the woman’s purse because he had done as much before. This might have been a further reason for Levy to shut up, not wanting to get involved with a criminal matter involving near relations.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 9:09 pm: | |
Mr. Andersson wrote:
1. “…you (Mr. Mephisto) and Mr. Radka are the ones that seem to be in a pathetic minority here -- not the "Norder group".
>>That’s the way these message boards work, unfortunately. It is a popularity contest, a court of public opinion; a school play yard, and a beauty pageant. Few people think for themselves, most meekly follow along with the majority, or whoever appears to be winning at the moment. The herd instinct prevails, and can be counted on to bolster the position of a smooth-talking, aggressive poster with an axe to grind, such as Mr. Norder, Mr. Omlor or Mr. Andersson. Anyone who cries “Silly!” is accorded sagacity. The message boards are only good if you know how to use them.
2. “…To claim that a bunch of professionals "doesen't agree" with the manuals is a hopeless argument. So what? Since then has scholars and academics -- and especially those in the psychological field -- really agreed on anything? Wake up! That doesen't mean that those manuals and check-lists are wrong.”
>>It doesn’t mean that the checklists get to the heart of the matter concerning psychopathy, either. In my view, they correctly represent a part—and only a part—of what the underlying condition involves. They are partial knowledge, designed for a set of specific purposes, and often politically inspired.
3. Mephisto wrote: "If you expect intelligent people to believe that your arguments have greater plausibility than Radka's, then you're obliged to supply the evidence that proves you're right, and he's wrong, otherwise you're just giving the readers your opinion."
Andersson answered: Duh! That was what I thought was the purpose of a discussion board -- giving ones opinions! Where do you think you are? At university? So you mean, just because I can't -- or won't -- enclose footnotes, references of litterature and page references with my posts posts on an open discussion board, my opinions are worth nothing? Do you think that Radka is credible, when he in his summary only cites one important source, namely Cleckley? Do you really think that is a coincidence? Please... Direct your critial eye where it belongs.”
>>I think what Mr. Mephisto is trying to get Mr. Andersson to do is make some telling argument that about psychopaths that supports his opinion, instead of uttering blandishments. Blandishments are indeed worth nothing. *** My Summary cites THREE important sources, Hare, Cleckley and Lykken, not one as Mr. Andersson says. If you were to read these three books, you would find adequate support for the positions I take. For the umpteenth time, a transparent lie by Mr. Andersson.
4. Mephisto: "If you didn't use these methods, then how do the Casebook readers know if your DSM-VI and PCL-R based arguments actually prove Radka wrong."
Andersson: They can't. I can't prove anything, and neither can you, in spite of passage after passage of namedropping.
>>This kind of pseudobanter goes over great with the Chandala element, which could not tell the difference between a hot dog and filet mignon. Apparently Mr. Andersson feels that if he criticizes academe’, he therefore is not required to follow its rules, namely supporting what he says.
5. Andersson: “Not one of these (various) sources fully support Radka's version of a "psychopath", who's mental condition seems to stretch in all kinds of pathological directions. Yes, a psychopath can be irrational, but rarely in the confused -- almost schizofrenic -- manner that Radka suggests in the Mitre Square example. It just doesen't add up. "Irrational" and "impulsiveness" is not the same as stupid!”
>>You’ve got no idea what you are talking about. The whole point of the extremeness and gravity of the underlying condition has gone over your head. The disability has massive far-reaching effects. You are picking up shallow banter from various sources and taking it for truth, instead of reading case histories extensively. You do not understand the self-contractoriness of psychopathic behaviors, or the degree to which psychopaths differ from normal people, and can be reasonably considered even more disturbed than psychotics. You don’t need to be schizophrenic to be self-contradictory, just foolish, but you have no clue how foolish a psychopath can be. Diagnostic characteristics of the syndrome apparently do not reveal human depth to you, Mr. Andersson, and neither the lack of it. Psychopaths do very, very irrational things, sometimes so perverse as to seem beyond crazy. In order to NOT be susceptible to the lure of doing incredible things you have to be normal, but a psychopath is proven to have pathology at the very deepest depths of his being. I’m amused at the people who write here as if they know all there is to know about this subject. I’m often LOL.
6. “And yes, a psychopath can do things for gain and profit, but when they committ these types of murders (which are not always done by psychopaths!), profit or gain is NOT among the main motives.”
>>Rubbish idea. You are claiming predication from statistics, a deadly mistake. A psychopath is a psychopath, and is always susceptible to the lure of profit and gain. How often in your historical studies of “lust murderers” was the lure of a truly massive reward put up? How often did a “lust murderer” have a gold-plated proxy sitting right in his own kitchen to turn in for the money? How often did a “lust murderer” have a modus operandi of killing right in the streets, so he could set up witnesses? JtR had all this and more going for him, therefore it seemed entirely natural to him to pursue the profit. It seemed as if the big bucks were right there for the taking.
7. “They are sexually based or a result of demented, uncontrolled and unfocused rage. So, their motives -- if there are any -- are irrational, not well thought out like in the way Radka describes.”
>>Do you mean psychopaths or psychotics? You are fallaciously granting psychotic characteristics to psychopaths by conflating the two as you do above. Psychopaths are not demented, and they are not significantly motivated by any deep feelings, including rage. Your obsessive devotion to your concept of “lust murderer” causes you to make serious mistakes in your thinking. Isn’t hitting a big score with respect to money kind of a sexual thing?
5. “As far as psychopathy goes, I have critizised Radka for pinning the suspect down as a psychopath to begin with, since we can't know in retrospect -- 115 years after the crimes -- that the Ripper truly had this personality disorder.”
>>Self-serving rubbish on your part. We also can’t have an all-purpose combination psychopathic/psychotic “lust murderer” as you suggest above, either. No, we can’t dig him out of his grave and test his corpse for psychopathy. But we can reasonably postulate his underlying condition based on his behavior. And if we DON’T do that when we can, what kind of Ripperologists would we be? Unreasonable ones, I should say.
6. “Radka suggests that the spin-off motives for the murders was the suspect's need to a) raise his own status as the man of the house and b) for gain, namely to pin the murders on Kosminski and cash in the reward (unless I have completely misunderstood Radka's very complicated text).
I then suggested, that these are completely wrong types of motives in connection with murders of this kind, that are to be considered as lust murders -- a term Radka refuses to acknowledge, although already the police at the time as well as modern criminology know that these types of murders in general are completely motiveless and based on nothing but rage and sexual fantasies.”
>>Rubbish. The police at the time knew no such thing—it was 1888 for God’s sake, before any notion of sexual serial murderers. JtR was the first known perpetrator of his type, and nobody had anyone to compare him with. You’ll type out literally any rubbish whatever on your keyboard, won’t you? Lust, sex and petty pique certainly had something to do with these murders—you get no argument from me on that. But that doesn’t mean he could not have branched out in a different direction in accord with his pathology, given related opportunities perceivable by him. That is what the evidence says, in any event.
7. “The point is, the behaviour of Radka's character suspect is NOT consistent with psychopathy on several points, and is definitely not consistent with the behaviour of a lust murderer.”
>>Utter baloney. If you were to read “The Mask of Sanity” carefully, you wouldn’t be so cavalier in pronouncing what isn’t consistent with psychopathy.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 4:23 am: | |
This post is in response to Glenn Andersson's July 29, 10:48 pm message.
Hello Mr. Andersson,
In your July 29, 10:48 pm post, you wrote: "Mephisto, I don't care how many quotes, articles or sources you deliver. Like in the rest of the academic world in general, no subject or constructed "manual tool" is without controversy. The DSM-VI manual and Dr. Hare's PCL-R are no exceptions from this rule, and I think most of us realise that" (Andersson: 2004).
First off, although your individual understanding of the affects of academic assessments on theoretical subjects and diagnostic instruments, is consistent with my position, your personal ethics vis-ŕ-vis your rejection of my source citations, is out of step with the value that the majority of the readers here, have placed on the practice of supporting one's arguments with proof. It is also remarkable that one of the most chronic complainers about Radka's poverty of supporting evidence, has suddenly reversed himself on this important issue. I cite my sources to support my arguments, because I believe that the readers should have an opportunity to check the accuracy of my claims regarding the state of conditions or the details of events. Your rhetoric notwithstanding, every argument that states a claim, should contain a quote or citation of support. Of course, you can do as you please, but then the possibility of persuading anyone that your argument is legitimate is diminished. And isn't that the object of the exercise, persuading people that your point of view has merit.
Be that as it may, I'm pleased that we do agree on something, i.e., "no subject or constructed "manual tool" is without controversy", which is the point I've been arguing all along, i.e., if both manuals are flawed to some degree or another, then the most they can produce is probable inductive data, and not absolute deductive data. This argument correlates with your assertion that "psychopathy is one of the hardest psychological conditions to spot and determine" (ibid).
In my response to your July 29, 1:36 pm post, I cited, Hart et. al. 1991, The Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 100, No. 3, 391-398, which tends to support your argument. It seems the DSM-III, and III-R, based their diagnoses on the "behaviors that typify a disorder",i.e., a rigid list of "closed concepts" that left no room for clinicians to consider additional qualities, rather than the personality characteristics exhibited by the subject (Hart et. al. 1991). According to Hart, et. al. The, Axis II Work Group had the option to both simplify and add clarity to the new manual, but declined the opportunity "despite the advantages that dimensional ratings [personality characteristics] have in clinical research and practice, DSM–IV plans to continue using categorical diagnoses" [typical behavior] (ibid). It follows that if the DSM-VI has continued to use only typical behaviors as diagnostic criteria, then it doesn't "provide adequate coverage of the construct[s] [it was] designed to measure", and therefore, [it hasn't] made it any easier "to spot and determine" psychopathy (Hart et. al. 1991;Andersson: July 29, 10:48 pm post). It also explains why the DSM-VI doesn't contain most of the personality characteristics that Radka ascribes to his suspect; it uses a different identification format. This point is significant, because it also affects my line of reasoning relative to your argument, which claims that police officers and detectives agree that psychopaths display some of the same characteristics that you listed in your 1:36 pm post (Andersson: July 29, 10:48 pm post).
In your 10:48 pm post, you wrote: "police officers and detectives that has come across psychopaths and sociopaths,...agrees that they display such traits as the ones I listed in my previous post" (ibid). This claim and the list from your previous, 1:36 pm post (see below), comprise the premises of your argument, which claims that police officers and detectives agree that "shallowness, lack of empathy, manipulative and charming traits, mood swings,...sudden outbursts of rage, selfishness, [and] controlling conduct etc." are visible signs of psychopathy (Andersson: 1:36). Unfortunately Mr. Andersson, this claim is deductively invalid, and impossible as an inductive argument. It fails on two counts:
1)--The best detective in the world is unable to accurately determine if an individual is shallow, selfish, manipulative, controlling, lacks empathy, or is prone to mood swings, and sudden outbursts of rage just by observing his or her behavior. By themselves, none of these characteristics are enough to warrant criminal suspicion. How does one visually distinguish lack of empathy from lack of understanding, or control from guidance, or shallow from ignorant? For example: A detective from the 3rd Precinct sees two Lubavichers engaged in a heated shouting match on 57th St. corner of 7th Ave. in Mid-town Manhattan? What is he thinking? It's a psychopathic manipulation; it's two Hasidim engaged in the cultural tradition of handling in the Diamond District, or where's Duncan Donuts?
2)--The idea that there are clearly definable, visible behavioral characteristics, or "general traits" as you call them, which law enforcement officers use to determine whether or not an individual is psychopathic, is totally inconsistent with the utility of both, the PCL-R and the DSM-VI.
One can not determine by mere observation, if an individual is indeed a psychopath. To begin with, "completion of the PCL–R requires a relatively long semistructured interview and access to a considerable amount of collateral information" (Hart et. al. 1991). You must do an ITEM RESPONSE interview, account for all threats to validity, then record the data, code the data, and run the data through a variety of statistical analyses before you can even evaluate if an individual is indeed a psychopath, let alone determine the extent of their psychopathy (ibid). It is not unreasonable to assume, however, that after many years of experience, a law enforcement officer will be able to associate the details of an evaluation with some cursory patterns of behavior, but they will not be able to associate, or differentiate among behavioral patterns unless they have been specifically educated and trained to do so.
Mr. Andersson, respectfully, because your argument doesn't account for the confounds in item 1, and wasn't conducted according to the scientific processes required by the APA to collect and analyze data (see item 2), it fails to prove that anyone can accurately assess the value of Radka's description of his suspects psychopathy, by simply reading his summary and comparing his claims to a set of symptoms on a list. If you read both the DSM-VI and the PCL-R, then you must be aware that the characteristics of psychopathy only become evident, after an individual has been properly evaluated.
The individual must score .30 or more on the majority of PCL-R indicators and their sub-sets, to be considered psychopathic in any sense of the term. Furthermore, only after a scientific, statistical analysis has accounted for all the possible threats to the validity of the evaluation process as a whole, can a diagnosis be deemed accurate, and certifiable by a licensee. I'm sure you'll agree that interviewing a dead man to gather psychiatric data is impossible, therefore, evaluating said data is a non-starter. But, the same process also applies to Radka, he is constrained by the same fact of life, i.e., dead men tell no tales. Up until now, I haven't mentioned this double-edged sword, because I chose to concentrate my initial arguments on the criteria being used to criticize the summary. The content of the summary is next on my list.
As you have astutely pointed out, in the final analysis,"no one here can prove anything" one way or the other (Andersson: July 29, 10:48 pm post).
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mephisto
Bibliography
Hare, R. D.
1982. Psychopathy and physiological activity during anticipation of an aversive stimulus in a distraction paradigm. Psychophysiology, 19, 266-271.
Hare, R. D.
1984. Performance of psychopaths on cognitive tasks related to frontal-lobe functioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 133-140.
Hare, R. D.
1985. Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7-16.
Hart, Stephen D. and Robert D. Hare and Timothy J. Harpur
1991. Psychopathy and the DSM–IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 100, (3): 391-398.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:26 pm: | |
Ian wrote:
1.“As the author of the theory/summary David, does your theory stand or fall on DSM Vs Cleckley? I do you the respect that you actually have read DSM and so know and analysed it's contents.”
>>My theory has no problem with the DSM, a brief checklist of features promulgated by the APA, officially required for use to diagnose different psychiatric conditions (although many in the profession use it selectively.) It is intended to be used by trained psychiatrists only, for the purpose of creating some uniformity in their diagnoses according to guidelines in a profession chock full of divergent opinions and viewpoints. Everyone who uses it to distinguish between one psychiatric condition and another is assumed to have both an MD and a PhD in psychiatry, with extensive clinical and other professional experience, plus board certifications. Under no circumstances should anyone think the DSM is designed in itself to explain what any of the many different disorders it briefly summarizes are. It is merely the tip of a much larger iceberg. By the time a psychiatrist picks up the DSM to help him finalize a diagnosis, he already has narrowed down the possibilities very considerably based on his knowledge and experience—the DSM is incapable of getting anyone started from scratch with respect to explaining any psychiatric state. The only reason the DSM has become a matter of contention here is because Mr. Norder, after having made a glancing review of it following publication of the Summary, didn’t find exact language on it describing some of the traits he determined I was attributing to the psychopathy of JtR. This was enough for him to conclude that the Summary differed, in his word “blatantly,” from the psychiatric profession concerning psychopathy. The syndrome of psychopathy is a grave and paradoxical character disorder requiring extensive study and considerable intuitive ability to make intelligible. I am devoting 75-100 pages to a statement of it in the Thesis. There is no inherent conflict between the DSM and Cleckley-–they describe the same underlying condition in different ways for different purposes. I do not foolishly assert one over the other. I do not rely exclusively on Cleckley in my work. I rely on the divergent opinions of many psychiatrists.
2. “If the theory fails what are the points in which DSM would flaw the theory, and no you don't have to write 2-3 pages to answer this as you acknowledge there are "shades" of psychopathy and I expect neither Cleckley nor DSM say a psychopath has to be "pure" and not suffering from other mental disorders - I'm not sure whether DSM or a reading of Cleckley have a checklist which says you must have all these attributes to be a card carrying psychopath (and that may mean DSM validates the theory as much as Hare/Cleckley does).”
>>You raise some interesting issues here. First of all, psychopathy is a personality, not a mental disorder. There is nothing the matter with a psychopath’s mind; amazingly, he thinks the same sort of thoughts you and I do. The problem is that he does not develop adequate personal depth to enable him to ever change much from the time he was an infant. He basically remains fixed on the present time and place and his own immediate needs throughout life, the same as the way all a baby wants is his mother’s nipple, and screams vehemently until it is given him. His experience is attenuated, shallow, heavily dependent on external stimuli and thus unfree, sophomoric and meaningless. Life for a psychopath must be something like listening to Beethoven’s Ninth on a cheap 2-transistor pocket radio, with a single 1-inch speaker, made in the early 1960s—you can hear the music with your ears, but you have no experience of its depth at the core of your being. Generally speaking, psychopathy often grants immunity from mental problems; unable to appreciate anything whatever with any degree of seriousness, these people usually cannot become psychotic, insane, or even neurotic (although there are exceptions.) Their disorder, however, is totally pervasive throughout the psyche, and the factor of personal disability is graded in severity as equal to or greater than the worst psychoses. *** If you take simple checklists like the DSM or the PCL-R as your only source of information, then you wouldn’t have the necessary depth of understanding of the kind of profound maladaptive self-ruinousness, irrationality, and retrogressiveness typical of psychopaths. These aspects are best found only in the psychopath’s book of life, his personal history, which generally is known objectively only to those close to him such as his family. A good psychiatric case history, if detailed enough, would also put you onto the kind of subjective traits and personal strategies, repeated again and again, that define the condition.
3. “What _me_ check it out myself? I'm assuming you've done the reading and can adequately summarise it David and I'm happy to follow on your coat tails on this; or do you just enjoy toying with Dan and he with you?”
>>You have to go further than just “checking it out for yourself,” unfortunately. If you want to be able to understand why JtR did what he did, and thus incidentally who he was, then you have to generate for yourself an adequate perspective on his underlying condition. You are looking at reading 2-3 good books on the subject and many journal articles, and then making a thorough revaluation of all you know about the case from Begg, Fido, etc. I am here to supply information, perspective and references, and teach you how to ask questions as best I can. Never accept uncritically or trust what a superficial reader or observer tells you about these astonishing people who appear to defy logic.
4. “Same goes to you Dan, how does DSM disqualify the theory - lack of emotion? is it a must in DSM and can it acknowledge a difference between surface emotion and deep emotions? Could it be another mental disorder being combined with psycopathy.”
>>Lack of anger has no direct bearing on Mr. Norder’s criticism of the A?R theory. What Mr. Norder says is that I incorrectly have stated that psychopaths are incapable of anger. He reads in the checklist where they do make angry outbursts, so he claims that I so misunderstand the psychopathic condition that my whole theory must be wrong. Mr. Norder does not get involved with saying whether or not JtR was an angry person. And in fact, it has never been my position that psychopaths are incapable of anger. My position is that psychopaths are emotionally shallow. What passes for romance, joy, fear, anger, despair, sexual feeling, friendship or animus in them are far degraded and emotionally relatively impotent versions of these characteristics as experienced by us. What normal people imagine anger to be is a highly complex state, usually along the lines, for example, of that emotion that motivates Mothers Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D.)—a rich cocktail of fear, protectiveness of children, intense grief at their needless loss, deep resentment against drunken drivers who manipulate the system to regain their driver’s licenses and then repeat the behavior, sympathy for mothers who have lost children, and other factors. What psychopaths experience as anger is more like stubbing one’s toe on a sofa leg. They lack the rich anger, but they do have the poor kind.
5. “Is it a knockout blow if we had to rely just on DSM in your opinion.”
>>Absolutely. If all you did was consider the DSM you’d certainly be in a state of thinking you knew about something you really didn’t know about.
6. “Me, I happily accept he is a nutter - the precise type of nutter he is I'm open to persuassion.”
>>Unfortunately--and this is the hard part—he was a completely sane man. In order to understand him, you need to question your whole conception of sane/insane/rational/irrational from the ground up. It will be a salutary experience for you—good for your soul.
|
D. radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
{Mr. Palmer wrote}:
1."There is a failure to conform to society's norms and expectations.." Oh my!!
Listen, my old friend Anderrson. You say that psychopathy is difficult to determine.
On the contrary, 'psychopathy' is easy to determine---heck, anyone can be afflicted; all it requires is the rubber-stamp.”
>>There is a problem concerning the labeling of psychopaths, yes. Since the presenting condition is symptom-less, most anyone can be said or believed, truly or falsely, to be one. We’re not talking about typical psychosis, where there may be many obvious eccentricities and other symptoms. Further, what behavioral indications there are of psychopathy often closely approximate those of sociopathy, and confusion between the two can reign. This is why diagnosis is such a major issue, why there is such a seemingly helpless and endless striving and changing of definitions for the sake of objectivity, why there is so much conflation of one psychiatric state with another, and why Dr. Hare gets involved with his PCL-R. While most individual psychiatrists know how to tell the difference between one disorder and another based on their experience, from an official diagnostic standpoint the situation today is quite a mess. On a recent survey of the profession (I’m trying to remember where I read it—probably in Hare), there was a wide divergence of opinion concerning how the temperamentally antisocial personality should be classified, but over 90% of the respondents agreed that such a personality existed, that it had certain characteristics known to them (not necessarily the DSM criteria), and that they could generally identify such a case when they saw it. No matter how you want to classify psychopathy, there would be no doubt whatever that people such as John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy would be considered classic examples of the type—and I think Jack the Ripper also.
2. “A cynical fellow might tend to agree with Mephisto's statement: Radka's definition is really no better or worste than the DSM's. But that's hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?”
>>I have never made a definition of psychopathy on this web site. No one here should speak of “Radka’s definition of psychopathy” until I do.
3. “These definitions are so vague as to be meaningless. The diagnosis of 'psychopath' naturally developed out of the study of criminology in the 19th Century; all its various definitions merely reflect the subject's inability to conform to society. But societies are different, no? A pacifist would have been a psychopath in Ancient Rome. (Indeed, he was). It's only a leap or two away from phrenology and those photo albums of "criminal types."
>>This is incompetent writing. Several good books on the type are available that give good definitions, case histories, and clinical work. Anyone who tries can learn how to understand the issues involved and overcome the vagueness. Mr. Palmer loves wrecking and beating down any kind of philosophical or scientific understanding to make it seem like nothing but pieces, shards and relativistic guesses. It is in his nature as a sophist to do so.
4. “Your definition immediately gives the "diagnosis" a political & legal tint. (See the British legal definition of the psychopathic personality in the Oxford Book of the Mind entry; since it is a medical condition, it must be defined as something susceptible to treatment. If it's not susceptible to treatment, then, by definition, it's not a medical condition).”
>>Psychopathy straddles the medical definitional standard. Brain wave tests of psychopaths do indicate rather a stylistic difference in how the brain operates, but do not necessarily indicate a disease or defect condition of the brain. No one has ever been cured of psychopathy by any medical or psychiatric means, despite Herculean attempts. There is no known effective treatment for the disorder; no one even knows if it may be theoretically “susceptible to treatment,” in the medical or any other sense.
5. “Cleckley disputes that it can be treated, so he's really out of his element. It's a moral question, not a medical one. But to continue. The point is, the definitions are so cloudy that they can include anyone from the abolitionist John Brown to Joan of Arc to John the Baptist to barmy Courtney Love to Socrates to Salvidore Dali to Messrs. Radka, Andersson, and Mephisto.”
>>Is psychopathy a moral question, really? If you have no conscience, meaning you are incapable of feeling bad about literally anything you’ve ever done or might do, how can it be said that you are morally responsible for the evil things you do? Sure you’d know it were evil before you did it, but in the long run there would be no stopping you from ruining your life by doing purposeless evil misdeeds. So when the psychopath tells the judge he just can’t understand how he can be blamed for something that wasn’t his fault, isn’t he in a paradoxical way telling the truth about himself? What a psychopath does in a given instance is in his hands, but the gross immorality of his life taken as a whole surely isn’t. So is he mad or just bad? Both or neither? Retarded? Defective? Ignorant? An infant that never grew up (but can drive a car, get a PhD degree, be President of the United States, etc.)? Exactly what is the correct classification? While we just don’t know, we do somehow sense that we are supposed to know and thus make that classification. Now you may see what I mean concerning the constant flux and change of the DSM. Sure a board of psychiatrists can sit and cite more or less common traits among the psychopaths they’ve known, but when they put the list together, it doesn’t say much of anything about the underlying condition. You’d have no way of knowing what a psychopath is really like from reading that list. Thus, a psychopath could still be anybody.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
You're right. Psychopaths can get angry. But, do all psychopaths get explosivly angery? Is it possible that some psychopaths just get a little pissed off, and get over it? Is it also possible that some psychopaths just get mildly annoyed, and go about their business?
My point is, does anger have a singular intensity
among all psychopaths, or is there variation in the level of intensity among individuals?
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Mr. Andersson wrote:
1. “I don't have a degree in psychology and have not taking any class whatsoever on the subject. I have only a personal interest in criminal psychology (yes, I know... I must get a life...)and am plainly an amateur. However, one does not need to be a scholar in order to put a stake through the heart of Radka's theory and his definitions of psychopathy, as well as through the wall of confused remarks by "Mephisto". First of all we must acknowledge the fact that although experts on the subject have different opinions regarding certain details concerning this very difficult "disorder", most of them agree on several major characteristics of psychopaths: shallowness, lack of empathy, manipulative and charming traits, mood swings with often sudden outbursts of rage, selfishness, a controlling conduct etc. Anybody knows this. So, Mephisto and his buddy Radka clearly thinks this is rubbish and says that Dan and others are wrong. Fine. It doesen't help Radka's suspect character one bit.”
>>I absolutely do not think it is rubbish! I agree with the main line psychiatric descriptions of psychopathy 100%, and I agree with the main line empirical evidence of the Whitechapel murders 100%. All I do in my work is put the two together—I use the former to explain the latter. What could be simpler?
2. “We can of course -- as Mephisto and Radka chooses to do -- ignore the American Psychological Association's own professional diagnostic criterias in the DSM as well as Dr. Hare's checklist of psychopathy. But on what grounds? Because of Cleckley? Because of Radka the Accountant?”
I do not ignore or disagree with Dr. Hare! I do not disagree with the DSM! I do not disagree with the PCL-R! To the contrary, I use them to solve the case! I don’t believe, however, that simple checklists alone are adequate to educate a novice concerning what the disorder is. For that, you need extensive study of case histories. What does being an Accountant have to do with this?
3. “Let's all be frank here. Let's ask ourselves the question why Radka has chosen to refer and cling to Cleckley especially and then chooses to discount criterias based on other, rather distinguished sources, like the APA.”
>>I do not cling to Cleckley! Please show me specific evidence in the Summary that my interpretation of the case is inordinately Clecklean in nature. Do you even know what Cleckley did? What his basic ideas were? What kind of thinker was he—somatic, humanist, postmodernist, or Freudian? Have you got any knowledge about him at all to back up what you are saying here? If you want to say that I cling to Cleckley, please then write us a detailed summary characterizing Cleckley.
4. “Answer: because it fits his theory! This is what it is all about; namely pick-and-choose reasoning to fit "facts" into theory. Anybody can do that. Furthermore, when that is done, the door opens immediately to arguments about minimalistic details in order to win retorichal points, with dissertation posts even longer and complicated than Radka's own "summary" (which in itself is an achievement) -- which is how and why this extraordinary thread -- like the ones dealing with Maybrick -- has managed to live on way past its exporation date.”
>>The DSM and the PCL-R do not harm my theory, they help justify it. We are not talking about “minimalist details” on this thread—we are not, for example, debating the finer points of Cleckley versus the finer points of the DSM or Hare! Show us specifically where this is happening here. My theory is based on the general notion of psychopathy taken from MANY psychiatric sources, and does not lean in any one direction or the other. It is mainstream in nature. And as I’ve said before, I DISAGREE with Cleckley on his ultimate categorization of psychopathy as masked psychosis, although that doesn’t have any impact on my theory. Show us specifically what “facts I am picking and choosing to fit my theory,” as you say. Detail for us a set of attributes that you think my suspect has, but that psychopaths can’t have.
5. “The fact is, we can't, 115 years in retrospect, even know for certain that Jack the Ripper was a hard core psychopath to begin with -- there are other disorders to choose from.”
>>Many empirical points in the case evidence strongly suggest he was a psychopath and likely not suffering from or acting out of another type of disorder—that he was a classic psychopath, in other words--a factor we cannot ignore. I will allow that the Summary doesn’t present a full case for this in itself.
6. “But even if he was, Radka's character suspect goes down the drain on several points. He just does not fit the bill. I have said it before and I'll say it again; Radka's "psychopath" is a mish-mash of all thinkable retarded and violent traits in this particular context, otherwise this "psychopath" wouldn't fit the puzzle of events, criminal conduct and constructed "motives" that Radka suggests.”
>>Rubbish. You have no idea of what you are talking about—you just wind your mouth up and let it fly—you offer no points from appropriate scientific literature to back yourself up.
7. “Radka has stated that we must throw empirical and classic investigation methods out the window to solve a case that is over hundred years old. OK. So what else does he suggest instead? Fabrications and home-grown psychological "solutions", based on the "crime scene evidence". I don't think so.”
>>I do not fabricate anything. Everything I write ties into to the case evidence in a reasonable manner based on stated guiding criteria.
8. “Radka has clearly shown that his new "ground-breaking" methods are useless, since they allow us to claim practically everything we like, as long as we have a vivid imagination and are prepared to bend facts, witness statements and crime scene evidence beyond the boundaries of reality, as well as pick and choose among the sources in order to make it all fit. Not to mention writing in such a complex style, hoping that the reader will be confused enough so that the holes in the theory become invisible to the naked eye.Or maybe it's unintentional (but I wonder what's worse).”
>>Rubbish. My “methods” constrain interpretation of the empirical case evidence based on critically determined, clearly stated criteria, and this is the first time that has ever been done in Ripperology. You have got me exactly backwards in what you say. Make some claims that you think are justified under my method, will you? I’d like to show you how my method prohibits them logically.
9. “I am sorry, Radka et. al., but I prefer to stick to my old-fashioned detective methods and empirical data, and to the case evidence at hand, rather than enter the world of speculations and psychological generalizations.”
>>Okay, so give us your case solution based on this methodology right now, like I have. Can’t do it, can you? Wonder why? Because you don’t have an adequate methodology, that’s why. I hope you are more truthful in your empirical speculations than in your above post, because it is composed of nothing much more than arrant lies.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Mr. Linford wrote:
“Hi David
If Jack wished to inflame the Jews, why not simply chalk "The next woman I kill will be Jewish"?
Robert”
>>Because he’s currently off on a psychopathic project that has a different scheme to it. Before the Duke Street sighting, he had determined that he would murder two prostitutes at different places that evening, so that he might coerce a Jewish witness from each crime scene to identify Aaron Kosminski as his proxy. Thus he wants to trigger discord between gentiles and Jews, so as to serve as a backdrop for the coercion of his witness-victims. Rioting would serve to intimidate the witnesses, and make them more susceptible to his demands. The notion of the Jewish community being blamed for the murderous actions of a gentile, he thinks, will accomplish this. Based on the graffitus the Jews will think a gentile is framing them and the gentiles will think the Jewish community is protecting a Jewish JtR, and thus the two sides will enter into violent conflict. The text of the graffitus is also designed to suggest to the police to look for and eventually accept a Jewish suspect as JtR, such as Aaron.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 9:12 pm: | |
Sarah wrote: Just want to point out that throughout this whole thread you seem to be saying:-"I have no evidence for my theory, nor can I find any, however, if you don't believe everything I am telling you without this evidence you are ignorant."
With one or two exceptions, I do not think the people posting this web site are ignorant. The evidence for my theory, as I’ve been saying since April, is the empirical evidence of the case taken as a critical whole. If I appear condescending, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be, and you wouldn't think that of me if you met me. I am more or less a self-deprecating person in person.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 197
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:28 am: | |
Mephisto goes on the offensive again to try to cover up his mistakes and makes even more in the process:
"Norder, you're such a loser, you can't even keep your lies straight anymore. In your July 27, 10:57 pm post you don't claim that psychopathic anger is "possible" or "very likely"; you claim that it's "characteristic of a psychopath", i.e., a characteristic of all psychopaths."
You once again prove that you have no clue about how any of this actually works. Diagnoses do not require that a patient manifest all of the characteristics of the mental disorder in question, just a certain number of them.
For example, the DSM IV criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder say that the person in question must display "three (or more)" of seven characteristics. Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised also does not require that a patient display all characteristics or even a specific characteristic, it rates 20 of them on a sliding scale (0 for not at all, 1 for somewhat, 2 for definitely), and total scores over a certain level (30 is standard, some people use 25) indicate psychopathy.
It's possible to show no indications at all of some characteristics and still rate as a psychopath. But when David argues that it's impossible for psychopaths to have a certain trait, and it's listed as a characteristic of a psychopath on the two leading methods of diagnosing psychopaths, he is clearly wrong. You trying to argue that characteristics have to be present in all cases is also wrong, and even the fact that you are arguing it in this case proves David wrong. If you think it has to be present in all cases, then clearly it's not impossible.
"I'm not arguing Radka's concept of psychopathic anger. I am arguing that your claim that "explosive anger is one of the defining characteristic of a psychopath" is wrong"
I realize you were *trying* to prove me wrong, but the source you cited actually proved David wrong. Your intent doesn't matter if your own source proves me right.
"Why are you still trying to con the Casebook readers with this idiotic misdirection scheme."
Pointing out that an article that doesn't cover the topic you claim it does isn't misdirection, it showing that you were purposefully being deceptive. Explaining to you that even if it did say what you claim it did, that one journal article hardly overrules what the American Psychiatric Association and Dr. Robert Hare says on an issue isn't misdirection, it's just describing how science works.
"then you tried to deny that you wrote that statement"
No, I'm not denying that I wrote that, I'm explaining that your interpretation of what it means is faulty.
"How stupid do you think the Casebook readers are?"
It's strange that you keep trying to pretend that everyone is on your side when the posts clearly show that even people who don't tend to agree with each other often all agree that you and David have no clue.
"You lost whatever ability you had, to trade on your personality when you got a little snippy with Mr. Souden, and he told you to shove it up your......nose."
I think you have confused me with someone else.
"you're giving the readers some insight into your personal ethics with that little gem of reasoning, it says that you got your "superior credentials" by plagiarizing other people's ideas"
And now you're just making up accusations out of nowhere hoping to try to make one stick.
"Give the Casebook readers the details of how you used the PCL-R to arrive at your conclusion that Radka's description of psychopathy is wrong."
Already been done, several times. And so far I haven't seen any indication that anyone other than you or David fails to understand them at this point.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 198
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:10 am: | |
Oh, and now I see David backs away from his earlier statements about anger and tries to explain it away by saying that when psychopaths explode angrily they are just pretending to be angry, or in a mental state that functions in every way like anger but isn't actual real anger.
Similarly, he says that psychopathy isn't a problem in mental health or a real disorder, it's just a philosophical state that acts like a mental health problem but isn't actually.
Basically David's arguments always seem to come down to his claim that he is never wrong, even when he appears to be wrong. I guess he's just in a philosophical state that functions in every way like being wrong but isn't actually wrong.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:24 am: | |
David,
psychopaths are incapable of any deep emotions
So are you also saying that psychopaths are incapable of love because I also know that this person I know was very much in love, so much so that she stayed with a man who abused her violently rather than leave him. She said she loved him all the time. If she didn't, surely she would have left him earlier.
I also don't accept that you say she doesn't get angry. As I've explained, she gets very angry. If you don't call that angry, then please explain to us what you call "anger"?
I'm sorry to have had a go at you though, I'm sure you're not really condescending or arrogant, but sometimes it comes across that way on here.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
Hi David,
Have you always hated us or isn't something we said?
You Brits just can’t imagine what rationalism is, can you?
Collins Pocket Dictionary, (2002 ed)
rationalism, n. philosophy that regards reason as the only basis for beliefs or actions.
Thats not really very hard to understand is it David?
Mephs,
Last time I checked I was not the one who was retorted to childish name calling and trying to compete with other posters on the basis of their educational background. That was you. So which one of us is it who needs to grow up?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Hi All,
Here are some gems from this week's episode. There were more, but this will do to demonstrate just where we are. No accompanying comments are necessary.
"You Brits just can’t imagine what rationalism is, can you?" (Radka)
"You Brits tend to think that the only good is empiricism, and if it doesn’t work, well, then we just need more empiricism." (Radka)
"For countless decades Ripperologists have been saying, 'We really don’t know' as if it were a mark of their truthfulness, distinction and honesty. But it is really a symptom of their degeneracy, slothfulness and too-easy acceptance of limitations." (Radka)
"Norder, you're such a loser, you can't even keep your lies straight anymore." (Mephisto)
"How many people do you think are interested in subscribing to a magazine, edited by a guy who isn't clever enough to distinguish his ass from a dirt aperture?" (Mephisto)
And my very favorite of all:
"The following posted above is offensive to me as a Christian." (Radka)
Still lovin' this (and my own "degeneracy"),
--John  |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 199
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
Hi John,
Yeah, David and Mephisto just get more ridiculous every week.
On the whole "How many people do you think are interested in subscribing..." bit, I should mention that total number of paid subscriptions have increased by 50% in the few short months I've been editor. Existing subscribers are renewing, new subscribers are coming from all over, and the new format is getting rave reviews.
I guess Mephisto was expecting the exact opposite, but that's no surprise. He is always out of touch with the way things actually are.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:31 am: | |
Hi Dan and John,
The other thing I noticed was (as far as I can tell) David offers no explanation as to what he dislikes about empiricism (apart from its association with Britain)and as to why his way is automatically the best way.
And while drawing our attention away from the main faults (sorry points) of his theory and getting us to discuss his strange comments he is at least to some degree stringing out this thread for all its worth.
Just a thought
Jennifer
perhaps I am accepting the limitations of David's theory to easily?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Oh and David here are some websites you might like to look at and then apologise for saying
"You Brits just can’t imagine what rationalism is, can you?"
http://rationalist.org.uk/
http://www.humanism.org.uk
http://wordiq.com/definition/Rationalism
http://www.secularism.org.uk/
there are others just try Google for more fun!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1998
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Dear Mr Radka,
"It doesn’t mean that the checklists get to the heart of the matter concerning psychopathy, either. In my view, they correctly represent a part—and only a part—of what the underlying condition involves. They are partial knowledge, designed for a set of specific purposes, and often politically inspired."
I agree. I am not here to defend the checklists and manuals -- I know that they have their flaws and generalizations. I am just pointing out, that those are the tools we are bound to use if we want to study psychopaths and there they are relevant, especially on those points where they correspond.
"My Summary cites THREE important sources, Hare, Cleckley and Lykken, not one as Mr. Andersson says. If you were to read these three books, you would find adequate support for the positions I take. For the umpteenth time, a transparent lie by Mr. Andersson."
No, it's not a lie. Anyone who can read, can see that Radka throughout the summary is referring to cleckley to find a basis for the grand majority of his statements. It's all there in black and white. Your summary is one of the more side-tracked pieces I have ever read -- also compared to what I encountered during my years in university, and that says a lot.
"The disability has massive far-reaching effects. You are picking up shallow banter from various sources and taking it for truth, instead of reading case histories extensively. You do not understand the self-contractoriness of psychopathic behaviors, or the degree to which psychopaths differ from normal people, and can be reasonably considered even more disturbed than psychotics. You don’t need to be schizophrenic to be self-contradictory, just foolish, but you have no clue how foolish a psychopath can be. Diagnostic characteristics of the syndrome apparently do not reveal human depth to you, Mr. Andersson, and neither the lack of it. Psychopaths do very, very irrational things, sometimes so perverse as to seem beyond crazy."
This one just kills me.
So, you mean, since a psychopath -- in your interpretation of the sources -- can act in a contradictive manner (which I am very well aware of that they can, thank you!), we are supposed to accept any kind of crazy behaviour from your suspect character? Oh no, Radka. Don't even go there. You are using the "irrational" and "contradictive" traits to support whatever strange behaviour from him. I don't buy that kind of approach. Even a psychopaths irrationality has its boundaries. In fact, as I've pointed out, your character sometimes develop traits that is more consistent with someone suffering from schizofrenia and delusions than psychopathy. Somewhere you got to draw the line in order for your character to be credible, you can't just give him whatever emotional baggage you like in order to prove a scenario -- because that is what you're really doing!
"Many empirical points in the case evidence strongly suggest he was a psychopath and likely not suffering from or acting out of another type of disorder—that he was a classic psychopath, in other words--a factor we cannot ignore."
You can't know that! You can't diagnose an anonymous individual 115 years after the actual events, with fragmetaric material and "case evidence" at hand. There are also points that suggest a paranoid schizofrenic, there are points that suggests someone with religious mania, there are points that suggests a sexual serial killer. Pick and choose, Mr Radka. We all have our own personal preferences when we interpret the case evidence. Your attempts to turn your own personal notions and interpretations into a truth formula is vain and self-absorbed, and is bound to fail. There is no real truth here and no final solution. And there probably never will be.
"I do not fabricate anything. Everything I write ties into to the case evidence in a reasonable manner based on stated guiding criteria."
No no no no. Don't give me that. Mr Radka. Everything in your theory is constructed in order to make it fit you scenarios and your interpretations of the events -- not the facts.
However, I must admit, you are not alone in that regard.
"My “methods” constrain interpretation of the empirical case evidence based on critically determined, clearly stated criteria, and this is the first time that has ever been done in Ripperology."
Yeah, that's what every suspect-oriented author say. Like I haven't heard that one before.
"How often in your historical studies of “lust murderers” was the lure of a truly massive reward put up? How often did a “lust murderer” have a gold-plated proxy sitting right in his own kitchen to turn in for the money? How often did a “lust murderer” have a modus operandi of killing right in the streets, so he could set up witnesses? JtR had all this and more going for him, therefore it seemed entirely natural to him to pursue the profit. It seemed as if the big bucks were right there for the taking."
This is so completely wrong that it's almost demented. I have never encountered a case involving lust murders, where gain and profit has been the key element for a motive. A lust murderer kills of purely emotional needs and urges, some may be sexual, some be triggered by anger or some sort of mania or strong belief. But hardly money or gain. You are completely lost here, and you show once and for all that the term lust murderer is really beyond your knowledge.
And this is also where your so called suspect is really missing his flight to Credibility Land.
"Do you mean psychopaths or psychotics? You are fallaciously granting psychotic characteristics to psychopaths by conflating the two as you do above. Psychopaths are not demented, and they are not significantly motivated by any deep feelings, including rage."
Completely wrong again. Several people here have tried to tell you otherwise and explain that you are utterly mistaken on this point. A psychopath is usually unpredictable and although they are not in possesion of normal emotions like we know them and they can't have empathy for other people, their violence and their crimes are very emotionally based and sometimes passionate. Psychopaths can indeed have a very explosive temper. This is also illustrated in the checklists and manuals, you so freely interpret for your own benefits. When will you ever learn, Radka, that you are WRONG here? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
"Rubbish. The police at the time knew no such thing—it was 1888 for God’s sake, before any notion of sexual serial murderers. JtR was the first known perpetrator of his type, and nobody had anyone to compare him with."
This one really makes me wonder if I've entered a lunatic asylum.
The internal police communication and the doctor's comments clearly states that they in their own words suspect some sort of "sexual and homicidal maniac". Yes, this was the first murders of its kind to probably gain recognition, but apparently the police were NOT totally ignorant on the subject of lust murder. I will even go as far as saying, that they understood it better than you obviously do. It's all there; read!
"Okay, so give us your case solution based on this methodology right now, like I have. Can’t do it, can you? Wonder why? Because you don’t have an adequate methodology, that’s why."
More rubbish. We are -- regardless if you accept it or not -- dealing with a criminal case here (oh sorry, I forgot; you don't believe in police work...). An intellectual methodology restrains your way of thinking and shoves it along constructed paths that in the end has nothing to do with reality and forces you to think along lines that goes beyond the evidence in order to make it fit the "method". I prefer to let the evidence speak for themselves -- using academic methodology is redundant. You've been too long in university. Relax!
You are the one that claims you have found the solution, and I am saying you're solution is a fairy-tale.
And no, I don't have a theory of my own. In contrast to you I am not suffering from the delusion that I can solve this case. I just enjoy the mystery.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
David,
Considering that you have been criticized for using unnecessarily haughty language, I have to crack up at your use of "dirt aperture" in lieu of "hole in the ground". Are you caricaturing yourself?
And thanks for the recap, John, or I would've missed that one!
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Hi Kelly,
I think you'll find that the particular little gem you cite above was actually Mephisto's.
But David has more than his share of ridiculous beauties as well, as you can see.
I can't wait for the next installment, to see what perfectly perverse prose is presented proudly to the perplexed posters here.
I hope there's more about "you Brits..."
Stay cool,
--John  |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1295
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:30 am: | |
John,
He is right. I cannot imagine what rationalism is.
God knows Ive tried.
I also have problems with asinine, superciliousness, condescension and completcated excruciating effluence.
I guess it comes easier to some.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Oops, I did it again. It's hard to tell those two apart sometimes.
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1232
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
Kelly,
I don't blame you. I've made no secret about my belief that they are in fact one and the same. I also think that sometimes they both use unnecessary language. I just love the "dirt aperture" though.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
"It is my job to explain what happened by determining why it happened, nothing more and nothing less. What Levy actually does is tell Harris that he doesn’t like the looks of the couple standing at the head of Church Passage despite their being simply just another John and Mary couple and their doing nothing untoward, an absurdity of expression on his part." --D.R.
>>The intellectual error you are making here, Mr. Radka, is that you are imposing on Levy your own opinions and feelings. You find it "absurd" that Levy would feel alarmed or disgusted by a whore & her client at 1:30 a.m. in the morning. You evidently don't find the situation the least bit "untoward." What you fail to state, however, is the fact that Levy himself attempted to explain why he behaved the way he did. At the inquest he explicitly stated that he never went out late at night-- he was always home by 11 or 11:30 p.m. at the latest. He was evidently a simple man, a home body. Anyone who has lived in a big city (like London, New York, etc.) knows that places that are safe in the daytime & early evening can be very much altered at night. On the night in question, Levy overstayed his self-imposed curfew at the Imperial Club. One might speculate that a few glasses of wine were passed around. Whatever the case, it rained, and his departure--like that of the others--was delayed (Eddowe's inquest papers). And so Jospeh Levy, a simple man, against his normal customs and experience (a point in evidence) now finds himself walking up a dark East End street at 1:30 in the morning, and he is disgusted and repulsed by what he sees, a woman obviously plying her trade with what was probably a sailor. The explanation is simple and credible. What we see in the extant tid-bits of the inquest transcripts is the coroner having a bit of fun at Mr. Levy's expense. Indeed, I think it was the Daily Telegraph that reported that those present laughed out loud at the fastidiousness of this simple, honest man. .
Levy then tells Harris “the court should be watched,” meaning Mitre Square, presaging the crime that in fact soon after took place there. Levy then clams up and says nothing further. What am I as an interpreter to make of this? Apparently, Levy is appalled at seeing someone he knows with a hooker in an obviously compromising situation and blurts, but he thereupon recovers and gets out of the conversational faux pas without revealing anything further, e.g., that he knows the man, what the man’s name is, who he is related to, etc.'
>>This is your interpretation and you are welcome to it; it is certainly an interesting speculation shared by Paul Begg & (I think) Scott Nelson. On the otherhand, you have no way of knowing this, and have rather flimsy reasons for initiating such speculation to begin with. By your own admission, you reject Martin Kosminski as not being part of the empirical evidence. The term "blurted out" is not in the records, it's your addition in an attempt to characterize what might be candid statements by Levi as unbalanced and deceptive. I submit that the "original sin" in the case evidence is Anderson's 1910 statement. By assuming it is based in fact, you allow the assumption that the man seen by Levy was a Jew; the contemporary (1888) evidence would not allow you to draw this conclusion.
" If you were Levy and I were Harris, Mr. Palmer, and you told me you knew that John, and/or what his name was, I’d hold you in contempt for the rest of my life for being an indiscrete man. I’d never trust you with any privileged information about myself, fearing you’d give it away the first chance you had, and I’d basically try to avoid you thereafter. This social risk factor would be abundantly clear to a man of Levy’s age and experience, and is probably the main reason why he recovered and shut up.'
>>An eccentric position. If you held me in contempt for exposing a dangerous man, then I'd just as soon not associate with you.
Why does every human being you come across in the history of these murders, inhabit a disgusting world only motivated by self-interest? What about honor, decency, and respect? (Have you been reading too much Cleckley??) Think what you are accusing Levy of doing! At the time of Anderson's memoirs, The Jewish Chronicle wrote passionately about the fear the Ripper created among the Jewish women in the East End. Yet, you would have us believe that Levy would lie to his companions, the police, and the inquest (thus leaving his own community exposed to the whims of a murderer) merely in order not to "lose his social positon." A remarkable belief; more extreme and cynical than the view of Dr. Anderson when he was lambasted by Major Smith.
"...not wanting to get involved with a criminal matter involving near relations.'
Relations? What relations? Are you, or are you not, summoning the ghost of Martin Kosminski?? My suggestion here is that this is a very dubious explanation for those who have read about the actual social gulf that existed between the different classes of East End jews. (See 'Point of Arrival' or other books on the subject). It is unlikely that a native-born & affluent businessman like Levy would feel any kinship towards the Lubnowski family.
"I “explain myself” as follows: If I were Levy and I wanted to escape the situation without losing my social position to retaliation from the Jewish community, I’d make sure to fully cooperate with the authorities to throw off all suspicion.'
>> It's seems remarkable to me that after 115 years you can readily see the duplicity in Mr. Levy's actions, whereas his contemporaries, other than a nameless reporter from the Evening News -- flustered that Levy wouldn't give him a story--- detected none. If the police had suspected evasion on Mr. Levy's part they would have raked him over the coals. Yet Robert Anderson, writing to the Home Office shortly after the Eddowes inquest, commended the cooperation of those the East End.
"He takes the easiest and safest way out of a potentially disastrous situation, the same as almost everyone but the Pope (or the Chief Rabbi)."
I hope that you really don't believe that only the Pope or the Chief Rabbi would have the moral fibre to do the right thing.
"The following posted above is offensive to me as a Christian:
"A pacifist would have been a psychopath in Ancient Rome. (Indeed, he was)."
It covertly states that Jesus Christ was a psychopath. "
It does nothing of the sort. This is a transparent and cartoonish attempt at character assassination, Mr. Radka. It is a tactic that is beneath contempt. I was clearly indicting the Roman society, not Christ. And, of course, you knew this, as you later acknowledged my point about the "labelling of psychopaths" in your post of August 3rd, 2:39 p.m. If you are going to stoop to such tactics, let me withdraw from the discussion.
"Is psychopathy a moral question, really? If you have no conscience, meaning you are incapable of feeling bad about literally anything you’ve ever done or might do, how can it be said that you are morally responsible for the evil things you do? "
Think it through, Mr. Radka, and perhaps it will come to you. Is it possible that you and Dr. Cleckley are really in the devil's camp without knowing it? Perhaps you might wish to explore the following theological question. How is your acceptance of the existance of these innate & incurable moral reprobates compatible with the idea of free will that is necessarily element of the Christian system? Would you have me believe that God created moral monsters (2 or 3 % of the population, I think you stated) who were singularly unable to choose between good & evil? It's seems like a difficult position to take, theologically.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on August 06, 2004) |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Hi David,
>>No, I don’t magically transform a logical argument into empirical evidence. It remains a logical argument.<<
Doh, I dunno, the tailoring symbols theory seemed pretty magical to me bub.
The interesting thing is that a web site I visited the other day tells me Millwall football club was founded in 1885! Hmmm.
How far is the Den from Whitechapel and what were the results on those weekends?
Cheerio,
ian - keeping one eye open and the other one closed
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 2:57 am: | |
What lovely people David and Joseph are. |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
Norder,
You haven't answered my questions:
1) Do you have a college degree or not?
2) Have you ever worked in the field of psychology?
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 8:20 pm: | |
Dear Friends,
I must be away from you again for five days, beginning August 9. I hope to be reading posts again by the 13th and making contributions soon thereafter. I so much enjoy our time together. Thanks to all who post here, and may God bless you all.
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:36 pm: | |
Ms Pegg wrote: “Hello David, Nothing like making rash generalisation (you know the one about British people) did you do that with your theory of psychopaths too?”
>>I speak about the British and American peoples in relativistic fashion. Here is another little gem about the Brits. We get BBC TV News here. Recently they did a piece about the desperate situation of the Sudanese people. They showed truly horrifying scenes of starvation, homeless people writhing in the dust, moaning, desperately trying to protect their children. The last scene was of a little girl who was so weak she could not keep flies from going up her nose. About 5 flew right up it at about the same time. Just a scene of the most atrocious human misery. And then do you know what? The BBC cuts back to their female news anchor in the studio, and she has the nicest smile on her face as she segues into the sports report! Now THAT is something you never see in the states. When we run a piece like that, the anchor looks at the camera in horrified fashion, and shares their feeling of what they’ve seen openly, because it is horrible. It is difficult to convince me that the British do not have some kind of emotional coldness in them at work, despite that they think Americans are merely unsophisticated. The upper lip is much too stiff, if that is what it is. Can anyone explain this British reaction to me? Thank you.
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
In response to a comment "...lust murderers--a term Radka refuses to acknowledge, although already the police at the time as well as modern criminology know that these types of murders in general are completely motiveless and based on nothing but rage and sexual fantasies.", Mr. Radka replied (Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 9:09 pm):
"...Rubbish. The police at the time knew no such thing - it was 1888 for God's sake, before any notion of sexual serial murderers. JtR was the first perpetrator of his type, and nobody had anyone to compare him with..."
This statement is incorrect. First, the Whitechapel murders were recognized as a series and, secondly, the motive was suggested as being sexual mania at the time. There is no need to look further than Dr. Bond's report to Scotland Yard dated 10 November 1888 (the day after the Kelly murder) to see that this was the very motive recommended to the police:
"He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis."
A short list of basic definitions may be useful to the foregoing:
erotic = of, relating to, or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement.
lust = very strong sexual desire.
mania = mental illness marked by periods of great excitement or euphoria, delusions and overactivity.
psychopath = a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.
satyriasis = uncontrollable or excessive sexual desire in a man.
Mr. Radka is rather clever. He makes the claim that he has posted only a summary of his 'solution' and that various objections being raised by posters will be addressed in the full version when published. This allows him to see what attacks and criticisms his ideas may be subjected to, and also reveals his weaknesses and errors. All this in advance of the full 'solution', despite the fact that he has already written an almost book-length treatment on these boards.
I rather suspect that his 'full solution' is an ever-changing entity that is constantly being amended and added to. And we are all his dupes.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 8:18 pm: | |
Hi David,
3. “How can you have the temerity to suggest the Lusk letter wasn't from JtR? He has a theory which explains it all.”
>>Isn’t that what life is all about? Isn’t that why there were men on the moon, penicillin, etc?<<
I'm sorry... you think JtR sent the Lusk letter and therefore that is the reason man went to the moon and we discovered penicillin?
Maybe I'm guilty of mis-reading your reply, but I'm not really sure these days.
Cheerio,
ian - Keeping one eye open and one eye closed.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
"...I am not suffering from the delusion that I can solve this case. I just enjoy the mystery."
>>No brain, no pain.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 12:13 am: | |
David Radka:
"It is difficult to convince me that the British do not have some kind of emotional coldness in them at work..."
"O golden tongued Romance, with serene lute!
Fair plumed Syren, Queen of far-away!
Leave melodizing on this wintry day,
Shut up thine olden pages, and be mute:
Adieu! for, once again the fierce dispute
Betwixt damnation and impassion'd clay
Must I burn through; once more humbly assay
The bittersweet of this Shakepearian fruit:
Chief poet! and ye clouds of Albion,
Begetters of our deep eternal theme!
When through the old oak Forest I am gone,
Let me not wander in a barren dream,
But, when I am consumed in the fire,
Give me a new Phoenix wings to fly at my desire."
Keats.
I didn't even mention the guy who wrote the play Keats was invoking here.
"Emotional coldness."
Right.
--John (who each day marvels at what passes for serious thought around here)
(Message edited by omlor on August 07, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 5:36 am: | |
Hi David,
Just waiting for my apology from you re British Rationalism.
In the meantime, I'm sorry you took offence at the BBC news broadcast you mentioned. Clearly this one broadcast means we can generalise how all British people act/think.
Imagine for a moment if we did that from your president and his conduct. David, I put it to you all Americans are not like this example.
I doubt you will apologise - prove me wrong!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 689
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
ps, since you mention it I have never thought that Americans are unsophisticated.
David i don't know what century you live in but i doubt its this one!
(so back to AARRRRRRRR?????then or would you like to continue insulting the Brits, because David your post above is offensive to me as a British person)
Joe,
errr, why are you bothered?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
