|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 7:23 pm: |       |
Hi Jenn,
I have indeed ventured to the land that dare not speak it's name (shh you know <looks around> d-i-a-r-y w-o-r-l-d), as you well know.
However I have repented since then and am seeking professional help.
Cheerio,
ian -- Keeping one eye open and a finger up be dose.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 11:31 pm: | |
Mephisto--It's funny how people can read the same sentence and come away with wildly different impressions. In regards to your comment above, I don't think Mr. Rice was insinuating that you indulged in pederasty; I think his comment about 'pulling his kids out of your school' was in relation to the topical discussion about the over-the-top academic-tinge of the discourse, complete with footnotes &tc. (T.S. Eliot was once accused of being "intellectually muscle-bound") Thus, to my mind, he wasn't accusing you of the sort of thing that Plato lauded in his Symposium; rather, he was accusing you of sounding like someone who just stepped out of the Symposium; ie., the ol' Ivory Tower complaint. No offense, old man, but after reading this thread Mr. Rice was evidently wondering if maybe homeschooling wasn't the way to go. On that note, enjoy the academic year. RP |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 4:21 am: | |
Joe,
I'm sure we are all gutted that you won't be able to stop by for a few months. 
There's not enough hours in the day to list all the stupid things you've said on this thread, but how on the one hand you can say people are somehow distorting the truth about other people and insulting them and yet on the other call me 'twiggy' I find quite remarkable. A kin to digging your own grave.
There are blatant falsehoods in your post (you know what I am talking about)
There's so much more one could say but I fear it would break the posting rules!
its probably best to go back to school so you can grow up.
Jenni
ps if you wanted to hurt my feelings in calling me twiggy you succeeded congrats!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
Another gem:
"My 'own original thinking' is what solved the case. Nobody solved the case in a century because nobody thought originally before me."
--David Radka
Need we say more?
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 275
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
David,
As far as me supposedly flip-flopping on Cleckley, at the start I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You claimed to have based most of your ideas on what he said. I pointed out that his conclusions are quite outdated. As your arguments later became spelled out more and you quoted him and then put into your own words what you think he meant, it became clear that your "original thinking" had strayed very far from what he said.
You claim that you've only given 2% of your description of psychopathy and that nobody can judge you on whether you know what you are talking about based upon that small amount. That's ridiculous. A major portion of what you've presented is clearly wrong, and it can't magically become right because of this alleged 98% of other beliefs you haven't expressed yet. Everytime someone catches you in a mistake that you can't deny, you claim you have some secret info about your theory you haven't revealed yet that makes you right anyway. You can only be judged on what you actually say, and that's been shown to be highly inaccurate.
The PCL-R and DSM directly contradict what you have said, as has already been pointed out on this thread many times. You try to claim that they don't really contradict you, because the professional committees who created them supposedly conveniently left out vital information that would prove you right because they thought it's so obvious to them they wouldn't have to list it there. That's not at all how these references work. If it's not listed there, it's not important to a diagnosis. And if something is listed there it is considered very important. You apparently want to think otherwise, for the sole reason that you don't want to admit you are wrong.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1296
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
David,
What can I say? You say:-
My “own original thinking” is what solved the case. Nobody solved the case in a century because nobody thought originally before me.
I'm sorry but the fact that it is indeed YOUR thinking, means that it is YOUR opinion and not fact. I'm sorry but I do see that you have solved the case at all. I find this comment egotistical to say the least. It is fine for people to say that they think this is the way it was done and why, but not to say they have solved the case without a shred of evidence.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 276
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
And Mephisto Joe shoots off a whole pack of outright fabrications and juvenile personal attacks before he beats a hasty escape... Figures.
And talk about a pathetic parting shot... How can I claim superior qualifications in abnormal psychology to him and David when I haven't had professional working experience...? As already pointed out, graduate level classes in counseling and abnormal psych are clearly superior qualifications to him and David having no education in it at all.
Here's a sampling of more of his ridiculous statements:
"Norder admitted that he does not have any experience with the DSM-IV or the PCL-R instruments he allegedly used to support his allegations."
This is complete nonsense. I never said anything even remotely like this. Just the opposite, in fact.
"Did it surprise anyone that Mr. Magoo and his gullible sidekick failed to identify the post that contains the link?"
Every now and then Joe insinuates that I am lying because I don't go back and find the original post out of the hundreds here. At this point I can't even tell which link he is referring to. The only links I can think of offhand were the ones to the description in the DSM and PCL-R, which nobody is disputing. But then he knows making some vague accusation is better than being clear and being proven wrong yet again.
"I think he's afraid we'll find it, and discover that it doesn't support his claims at all."
He said the same thing about my saying that David claimed psychopaths were incapable of anger, yet that one turned up with an exact quote as well as a number of supporting ones. Joe never apologized for the baseless accusation that I was lying, and tries to ignore that he was proven wrong on this as well.
"As I mentioned earlier, I've always supported my arguments with verifiable citations."
Claiming to have called up 10 random psychologists who miraculously said that the APA doesn't know what it's talking about is not a verifiable citation. And when he has given citations, they frequently haven't said what he claimed they did. But then he ignores all those too, because it wouldn't do to admit he was wrong.
"Norder could go back to bitching about CMD"
He's got to be kidding. I have nothing but respect for CMD. This is just a pathetic attempt to try to cause strife by making up conflicts that don't exist. I don't know why he keeps trying this tactic, as it didn't work the other times he claimed that other people were saying bad things about me when they weren't. It just gets more people mad at him for trying such obvious dirty tactics.
"He attempted to obscure the flaws in the DSM-IV manual"
This tired old tactic? He hasn't proven that these so called flaws really exist as anything more than complaints from isolated critics, and the alleged flaws have absolutely nothing to do with what we've been debating, as the parts about the diagnosis of psychopathy are even agreed upon by the people who normally don't like the DSM. And what's even funnier is this same post claims I was lying when I said he was trying to tear down the APA, yet here he is claiming that there are "flaws" in the APA's DSM that are so bad that the bible of psychiatry should be thrown out and replaced with whatever he and David invent up out of thin air.
""Norder responded to my argument on June 23, at 8:49 pm, with a malicious personal attack."
Anyone who reads that post, the post that it was a reply to, and his follow up post can clearly see that his summary of what happened is wildly inaccurate. Pointing out that his statements didn't support his argument and are unbelievable is not a "malicious personal attack." He apparently considers anyone pointing out his mistakes to be a grave offense worthy of immediate personal retribution, as in less than 24 hours he launched into mean-spirited attacks, insults and charges of incompetence, and he never let up in the months since, simply getting worse as he was proven wrong on more and more things.
With any luck he'll disappear for at least another couple years like the last time he ran off after posters stood up to his smear tactics.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1297
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:15 am: | |
David & Mephisto,
Just one thing you should pay heed to. Both of you calling Dan, Mr Norder and referring to him as if he is not on this thread is very childish and pathetic.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 311
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:06 am: | |
Hey There Sarah -
Actually, I'm not certain they are doing it as an insult. When David and I have had correspondence, it was almost always Mr. Radka and Mr. Mullins.. only when we got mad at one another was I simply "Mullins" and he "Radka". I'm thinking it the same for Mephisto as well.
Course, I could be wrong 
Now.. back to trying to catch up on this and other threads.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 134
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Hell , I'm glad I didn't get involved in THIS debate ! If Birgit thinks that the Diary debate was bad , she should have tried reading this one ! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2974
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Simon, wait till you've read "The Diary of David Radka"! 
Robert |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Mephisto,
Dude, you the king...you the king !
Hat-rack...Haaaa-ha-ha-ha-ha.....Mr. Magoo....genius....pure ha-ha-haa...genius !
So this is what intellectual debating is all about....I wanna go.
Mesphisto.....you're full of poo and you smell like poo and you look like poo an...you.....you taste like pooo...you gotta...gotta pooo head and you are poo. You big sticky poo head you.
Monty
(Message edited by monty on September 08, 2004)
Ow, Ive just been doin time Sha-mone....It aint so bad !...I aint no Jack da Ripper - Dr Thomas Neill Cream |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 72
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Monty, I can only wonder---if you edited it, what EVER did it say before??
I try it make it a point in life to drop by this discussion about once a month to see if anything has advanced.
I have only one thing to say: Dan, my old Uncle Edgar taught me three rules of life and you're in violation of Rule Number Three-- Never argue with crazy people.
Mags |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 135
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Monty , I reckon if debating is this easy then we must be close to solving the case !
Druitt did it...because...because...I say so ! Hah ! And if you disagree , you smell of poo !
Case solved , lets go home !  |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 281
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
Yeah, got me there. Arguing with crazy people certainly won't get them to admit they are wrong, and it often is a complete waste of time since everyone else can see they are crazy. But then I think some of it is necessary so that new people who wander by the thread can have a better idea of who is crazy and who isn't.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Maria,
Monty, I can only wonder---if you edited it, what EVER did it say before??
You read my mind. I was thinking the exact same thing.
Jason,
I just find it extremely annoying when someone posts something to someone and then they reply by talking to the whole thread about you. I had one from David one and it was not well received by me.
I said something along the lines of not answering something because he can't and he said something like "I do not do this, however maybe this is something Ms Long does". Do you see my point?
I find it insulting to refer to someone as if they are not there. It reminds me of three people in a room and two are arguing and not talking and so talk through the other person. Imagine "Can you tell .... to pass the salt" and " Can you tell .... to get it himself". See how childish and annoying that is? Sorry it's just a pet hate of mine.
Just to be clear, my problem is not really with the "Mr Norder" part, it's the talking to the group and not directly to him. E.g. "Mr Norder appears to be twisting my words again". Now "Mr Norder (or Dan) you are twisting my words" would be better. Do you see the difference?
Sarah
P.S. I am not saying Dan is twisting David's words by the way. I agree with everything he is saying on this thread.
(Message edited by Sarah on September 09, 2004)
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:28 pm: | |
Mephisto wrote:
"I'll ask you again Norder.....Are you able to cite the post where Radka claims that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry? [...] I argue that when you made this claim, you where being disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest. Can you prove me wrong?"
Mr. Norder answered:
“Is this unambiguous enough for you:
"Psychopaths are incapable of real anger--it is too deep and complex an emotion for them."
D. Radka, May 2, 5:39 pm
He also has a more recent statement (one you should be familiar with, as it was a direct response to my posing the question to you and him, but then you apparently weren't paying any attention) that psychopaths don't experience actual anger and the most they are capable of is the same discomfort as having stubbed one's toe.
Now since you yourself say, backed up by a study you referenced...
"You're right. Psychopaths can get angry."
Mephisto, Aug. 3, 11:43 am
...your statement explicitly proves David wrong.”
>>I stand by all my statements about psychopaths and anger from the start of this thread, and have no changes to make to them. They are consistent and correct in every respect, and abundantly documented throughout the literature of the field. I have made perhaps fifty citations from the field on this issue on this thread. No psychiatrist anywhere disagrees with the position to my knowledge. My position, very often misstated by Mr. Norder, is that psychopaths do not and cannot experience qualitatively deep emotions of any kind, including anger, and that their lack of emotional dynamism causes their disordered condition. And this is clearly the sense of my above-cited quote: “Psychopaths are incapable of real anger—it is too deep and complex an emotion for them.” By “real anger” we refer to the emotional life of a normal person, who is capable of the complex and often bewildering interplay of emotional factors that make him or her different from everyone else, an individual with his or her own questions and fate, a subject within the unfathomable and labyrinthine realms of irony and tragedy. A psychopath on the other hand is limited to a banal and sophomoric existence very similar to that of other psychopaths, and fundamentally lacking in a personal destiny, either positive or negative. For example, JtR’s simplistic displacement in lashing out at Martha Tabram because of having a petty tiff with his wife over her care of Aaron is a qualitatively different matter than the complex anger portrayed of Hamlet, Antigone, Hedda Gabler, or Medea. If you want to understand the case evidence, you must be capable of understanding this.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Mr. Norder has repeatedly posted on this thread that the ‘A?R’ theory diametrically contradicts two published checklists of diagnostic criteria used for psychopathy. He claims that I fundamentally misunderstand and misconstrue these checklist criteria, and therefore since my account of the case evidence relies on my view of psychopathy, it is refuted. I have answered as often that the checklist criteria he cites are only brief highlights of the pathology, intended for use by experienced psychiatrists, and thus they cannot be relied on to provide lay people a fundamental education on the syndrome. Only a detailed study of psychopathic theory and case histories would be adequate in that respect. However, I have also pointed out quite often that the ‘A?R’ theory completely agrees on all levels with clinical psychiatry with respect to psychopathy, THE CHECKLISTS INCLUDED.
Below is a concise compendium of Mr. Norder’s comments to date.
‘PCL-R’ refers to Dr. Robert Hare’s diagnostic ‘Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.’
‘DSM-IV’ refers to the American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic Statistical Manual—Fourth Edition.”
( ) parentheses are Mr. Norder’s. { }brackets are mine. [ ] brackets indicate posting reference per the archives.
MR. NORDER WRITES:
“But, in all fairness, some professionals believe that "true" psychopaths go beyond ASPD {antisocial personality disorder} criteria. Dr. Robert Hare, mentioned a few times in this thread, is a major proponent of that stance. Of course, even then, the criteria used do not fit with David's theory. David seems content to try to rationalize the most bizarre nonsensical behavior as psychopathy, even when it doesn't fit the concept at all.” [Monday, May 10, 2004 - 7:08 am]
“These days there are two checklists for determining psychopathology, the DSM IV Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnostic criteria and Dr. Hare's PCL-R (psychopath checklist-revised). Neither one includes this irrationality and delusional thinking you keep bringing up. There's also nothing in them that support your beliefs that a psychopath is horrible at communication or that they lack all emotions.” [Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 9:24 am]
“…some of the supposed symptoms of psychopathy you base your theory on (lack of all emotion, disordered thinking, poor communication ability) are not at all part of the diagnostic process for either the DSM IV checklist or Hare's PCL-R criteria. These two references are used by the professionals in this field. If you make a claim about psychopaths that is not supported in these two references, then your claim is wrong, unless you are claiming than you know more about the issue than the entire profession of psychiatry.” [Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 2:36 pm]
“The publications of the American Psychiatric Association and Dr. Hare (whose work is based directly upon updating Cleckley's theories) directly contradict several of your claims about what psychopathy is (and ones you base your theory around)…” [Monday, May 17, 2004 - 1:00 pm]
“…Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist Revised and the American Psychiatric Association DSM IV manual…both say otherwise {to David’s account of the Whitechapel murderer’s actions.}” [Monday, May 24, 2004 - 9:35 pm]
“…all modern professional references on psychopaths contradict the key points of your theory. Why do you keep ignoring that?” [Monday, May 31, 2004 - 6:42 pm]
“Hey now Glenn, don't go blaming psychiatrists for Radka's theory as it directly contradicts what they say about psychopaths. You should be asking if he wants all psychiatrists, police officers and criminal investigators replaced with accountants.”
[Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 5:52 am]
“…modern professional references contradict David's beliefs about psychopaths…” [Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:19 pm]
“Your explanation of how you think Jack the Ripper acted includes blatant examples of delusional thinking that you try to explain away as being manifestations of psychopathy.” [Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:56 am]
“…if you are going to use terms like psychopathy that have a specific meaning in a professional field, that you use the term to mean the same thing that the professionals do. I personally don't care what you think psychopathy means, I care what the professionals like Dr. Hare and the American Psychiatric Association say. If you say something that's the opposite of what they say, as you often do, that means you are wrong. It's that simple.” [Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:56 am]
“David's strategy is to dare people to find any one thing wrong with his theory and then ignore the countless numbers of errors already pointed out to him. One of the more damning examples is that the diagnostic criteria professionals use contradict what he says about psychopathy, so he angrily shouts out in all capital letters that those should be ignored.” [Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 8:49 pm]
“Dr. Robert Hare -- mentioned by David earlier as an expert whose writings he allegedly is familiar with -- thinks the DSM criteria do not go far enough and has his own guidelines, which are accepted by many professionals. And, again, what he says about the condition directly contradicts David's claims on several important points with a direct bearing on David's theory.” [Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 8:49 pm]
“{Mephisto claims that}…every…professional source that contradicts what {his}…friend (an accountant with no training in psychology) says about psychopathy must be discounted, so David must be correct after all. {Mephisto} provided alleged comments from a handful of people with inferior credentials to the professionals who create the DSM and somehow expect that to mean that David's definition of psychopathy means something other than what the rest of the world uses it for.” [Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:59 pm]
“…the APA's DSM and Dr. Hare's PCL-R checklist both prove David wrong…” [Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:59 pm]
“Even the people {referring to Dr. Hare} who don't think the DSM's criteria for determining psychopathy is the best way to do things have specific criteria of their own for the purpose, which in every case I've seen contradicts David's beliefs on the matter.” [Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:59 pm]
“Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (created specifically to be what he sees as a better tool than the DSM for this one diagnosis) directly contradicts David.” [Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:59 pm]
"Dr. Hare says that psychopaths are explosively angry individuals and that this trait is so important to understanding and identifying them that he considers it one of the top pieces of information about psychopaths that mental health professionals and law enforcement officials should know. Thus when David says that psychopaths are incapable of anger, he is obviously wrong. To an amazing degree. To the extent that one would have to be living in chronic denial or be in a persistent vegetative state to fail to understand this point." [Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 3:53 am]
“If you {Mephisto} want to try to respond to my earlier posts disputing your claims that the leaders of the American Psychological Association don't know what they are doing, please do. If you'd like to try to prove why you think you know more about psychopaths than me or the APA or Dr. Hare's explicit statements on the topic, please do. If you'd like to try to give any reason at all why David's ridiculous, self-contadictory theory should be taken seriously, please do.” [Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 9:25 pm]
“So then I say, OK, well, here's the American Psychological Association's diagnostic criteria as printed in the DSM, which specifically says they are violently angry, and Dr. Hare's checklist for psychopathy says the same thing. So right there we have someone with far more education on the topic pointing out to David that something he said is *completely opposite* of what the professional references (including someone who he claimed earlier was someone he read) say, in no uncertain terms. Proof positive, end of story, David can't be taken seriously.” [Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:57 pm]
“{Mephisto asked:} "Norder, You've never seen Hare's checklist have you?"
{Mr. Norder answered:} Yes, actually, that's how I know it contradicts what you and David are saying.” [Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:55 am]
“…David consistently…{describes} all psychopaths as people completely opposite of the criteria specified by the clinical sources. He says it is impossible for a psychopath to have a trait that every expert says they usually have. That means he's wrong…” [Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:55 am]
“{According to clinical sources such as Dr. Hare’s ‘Psychopathy Checklist’}…actual psychopaths on many major points are completely opposite of how David describes them, anger being the obvious one I've brought up, but then there's rational thinking (David's supposed description of "psychopath" has delusional thinking akin to schizophrenia) and others too. Of course David didn't say that he himself contradicted the clinical sources, he oddly claims to follow them, even though they don't match up at all.” [Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:21 pm]
“The scale that's there and ready for everyone to see {Dr. Hare’s ‘Psychopathy Checklist’ and the APA’s DSM-IV} totally contradicts your claims on several points. I'm not saying that if it isn't there, it's not in psychopathy, I'm saying that if you claim one thing and they say the *opposite* then you are wrong.” [Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 1:40 am]
“David's ideas of how a psychopath acts (which is what he bases his entire theory on) do not fit the expert's descriptions of the disorder, whether it be the APA's DSM-IV, Dr. Hare's PCL-R, or any of the others. Basically all David has done is pick over quotes from some books while ignoring the major aspects of psychopathology and cooked up a highly implausible story based upon his misunderstanding of what he read.” [Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 1:21 am]
“The PCL-R {of Dr. Hare} and DSM {of the APA} directly contradict what you have said, as has already been pointed out on this thread many times. You try to claim that they don't really contradict you, because the professional committees who created them supposedly conveniently left out vital information that would prove you right because they thought it's so obvious to them they wouldn't have to list it there. That's not at all how these references work. If it's not listed there, it's not important to a diagnosis. And if something is listed there it is considered very important. You apparently want to think otherwise, for the sole reason that you don't want to admit you are wrong.” [Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 8:45 am]
The following categories are those of Dr. Hare’s “Psychopathy Checklist,” shown on page 34 of his 1993 book “Without Conscience” {New York: The Guilford Press, 1993} plus those of his later work as previously published on the internet. If anyone can find additional categories related to Hare’s checklists {PCL-R}, please post them, and I will respond to them. AS YOU CAN SEE BY MY ANNOTATIONS, THE ‘A?R’ THEORY CONFORMS AND CORRESPONDS EXACTLY TO ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA. THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER, AS ‘A?R’ INTERPRETS HIM, EXHIBITS ALL APPLICABLE CHARACTERISTCS SHOWN ON DR. HARE’S CHECKLIST. NO FURTHER CRITERA BEYOND THE CHECKLIST ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN HIS ACTIONS.
GLIBNESS / SUPERFICIAL CHARM
Exhibited by JtR in repeatedly talking prostitutes into working for him despite that they were becoming wary of encountering him. Had the ability of presenting himself to them in a good light. Slick and smooth.
EGOCENTRIC / GRANDIOSE SENSE OF SELF-WORTH
Massive evidence of a narcissistic, projection-based personal identity throughout the case evidence. For example, when mutilating the body of Annie Chapman at the rear of 29 Hanbury Street, remained oblivious to twenty people just about to arise to go to work in Spitalfields market living in the building—essentially, he projected his own existence up to the outsides of the windows at the back of the house they would be looking out, and no further. For him, nothing existed on the other side of those windows. Conduct of similar caliber throughout the murder series indicating an impudent fearlessness. Strong sense of the world revolving around him and his intentions alone, despite clearly making provisions to evade police. Inability to believe that other people in the immediate area had valid viewpoints of their own, which could swiftly lead to his arrest. Murders dramatic, theatrical and grandiose in nature. Clearly felt he had the ability to do anything he wanted to do, including deliberately exposing himself to witnesses in Berner and Duke Streets in order to use them to extort the reward money. Clearly attempted to make himself the center of attention of millions of people.
NEED FOR STIMULATION OR EXCITEMENT / PRONE TO BOREDOM
Strong sense of the murders being fun and thrilling in nature for the murderer. JtR experiences the shallow sense of fear in committing them—the heightened heartbeat and adrenalin rush, without the deeper aspects of feeling personally intimidated or worried about being captured. Living for the moment, inadequate sense
of a personal future. Becoming wealthy by extorting the reward would provide him the financial means for further stimulations.
PATHOLOGICAL LYING
Extremely confident in the use of use of fantastical and pseudo-logical concepts such as the setting of the Jewish population against itself (Summary item 10-2), the witnesses’ fear of reprisal on the part of the Jewish community (20-3), the ability of the witnesses Joseph Levy and George Lusk to receive, understand, and act on far-fetched fantastical criteria concerning the marks on Eddowes’ face, the Wentworth Graffitus and the Lusk letter (11, 20, 21). Establishes that the murderer is on the borderline of living in a pseudo-logical world of his own arbitrary creation, or that he casually and arbitrarily passes back and forth from such a world to objective reality. He is essentially so committed to lying that he forgets or loses acuteness with respect to being able to tell the difference between an effective falsehood and mere self-projection, if it concerns his ability to get something he wants.
DECEITFUL / CONNING / MANIPULATIVE
Attempted to con witnesses into not turning him over to the police (16). Planned later to con them into paying the reward to him (16). Tried to con Lusk into resuming his efforts to seek a Home Office reward despite Matthews’ specific statement that he would no longer take heed of outsiders’ appeals (21). Tried to con the Gentiles and Jews into violent conflict with one another (20-4). Conned Stride into walking behind the green gates with him after he had attacked her (19). Tried to con local prostitutes into an explosive emotional display for the purpose of disrupting the Lord Mayor’s procession (23). Indications of further manipulative behaviors throughout the murder series. Sense of real pride in his ability to get what he wants by lying indicated by repeated conning behaviors, essentially at every perceived opportunity.
LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT
Inapplicable, because JtR was not apprehended. We don’t have any way of knowing whether or not he felt remorseful concerning what he did.
SHALLOW EMOTIONAL RESPONSE
Massive sense of cold-bloodedness (i.e., shallow emotion) throughout murder series, despite its being theatrical, dramatic and gory (i.e., emotional) in nature. Emotional states short-lived and unsustained by the murderer. Some necessary emotions missing altogether, such as a lack of adequate sense of fear of being captured or of punishment for his actions. Was able to walk away from crime scenes showing no emotional response or agitation related to what he had just done, so as not to give himself away to passers by. Showed keen ability to appreciate his predicament at the crime scenes cognitively, since he always was able to engineer his escape from them, but not emotionally, since he lacked adequate fear for his own security. This behavior indicates cognitive intelligence, but at the same time a lack of emotional intelligence or depth.
CALLOUS / LACK OF EMPATHY
Completely unable to put himself in the shoes of Schwartz, Levy, Lusk, and the Jewish community to be able to appreciate that they likely would not have enough information communicated by him (by the marks on Eddowes’ face, the graffitus, and the Lusk letter) to be able to feel intimidated in the ways in which he planned for them, or that they probably wouldn’t feel intimidated even if they could comprehend the intentions of his obtuse communications. He believes they will do what he wishes simply because he wishes it. Many mistakes in his conning behaviors indicating lack of appreciation of the target victims’ perspectives, resulting in only partial success.
PARASITIC LIFESTYLE
Markings on Eddowes’ face and Wentworth graffitus clearly indicate a committed attempt to enter into a parasitic relationship with Levy, which was successful. Attempt to extort reward, albeit unsuccessful, indicates parasitism on society and government. Levy’s identification of Aaron Kosminski to Robert Anderson indicates murderer’s skillful parasitism in influencing Levy subsequent to the cessation, despite Levy’s being in a position to turn him over to the police. Forced Levy and family members to protect him in order to protect themselves. Repeated examples of parasitism indicate an instinct for it.
POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS
Repeatedly reacted pettily to perceived insults or slights. Killed Tabram because he felt irked that his significant other exercised her maternal authority to admit Aaron into their household—an act of emotional “displacement” frequently seen in psychopaths. Double event occasioned by John Pizer having stolen the center of attention from him. Miller’s Court affair resulted from Levy not humbly entreating him to stop murdering on behalf of the Jewish community. Responded in the classic sense of a psychopath in a short-tempered and hotheaded way to frustration and being disciplined by another person. Despite that behavior was hair-triggered, the murder scenes reflect orderliness, indicating “cold” anger.
PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
Inapplicable, because we do not know of JtR’s lifestyle in this respect.
EARLY BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS
Inapplicable, because we do not know of JtR’s childhood and adolescence.
LACK OF REALISTIC LONG TERM GOALS
Although the communications related to the double event (the markings on Eddowes’ face, the graffitus and the Lusk letter) are brightly conceived, often on the spur of the moment, they have almost no chance of achieving their intended long-term effects; indicates a disability with respect to planning for the long term. It would be very unlikely that he could later talk witnesses into identifying Aaron for the purpose of sharing the reward, as he intended. Places himself repeatedly in positions of abject weakness in the long run in order to achieve short run effects.
IMPULSIVITY
Repeatedly makes major strategic decisions on the spur of the moment. Decides to kill Eddowes despite that he knows Levy might mention his name to Lawende or Harris, thus compromising his very purpose in killing her. Murders committed not based on a deep sense of anger, but simply out of idle whims and stray thoughts (for example, fronting Edward Hyde in George Yard.) Doing accorded greater weight than thinking or planning. Reacted to the chronology of ongoing events on a day-to-day basis. I.e., perpetrated double event on first weekend after Pizer was acquitted by the Coroner, sent Lusk letter immediately upon learning that Matthews had issued a statement rejecting further outside influences, etc. Essentially had no plan in the murder series, and merely reacted to opportunities as he perceived their occurrence.
IRRESPONSIBILITY
The gratuitously foolhardy nature of the murder series conveys a strong sense of the murderer believing there was little or no chance that he would ever have to pay a price for what he was doing.
FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS
Inapplicable, since JtR was never formally called to account for his crimes.
MANY SHORT TERM RELATIONSHIPS
Massive evidence of short-term relationships with prostitutes he then killed, and witnesses he tried to con and manipulate. Lack of any sense that these conned witnesses would later turn him in after he would have had done with them, i.e., he felt that once he was done with someone, the person wouldn’t bother him again.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Inapplicable, because we do not know of JtR’s adolescence.
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL RELEASE
Inapplicable, because we do not know of any history of the murderer’s incarceration in prison or mental institutions.
ADULT ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR / CRIMINAL VERSATILITY
Murder series profoundly, directly and intentionally disrespectful to civility in nature. Unstable lifestyle featuring outwardly civil behavior most of the time punctuated by occasional gross violations of social norms. JtR as the ultimate example of an uncivilized man, or a man pursuing totally uncivilized ends. Criminal versatility indicated in the mixing together of sexual serial murder and extortion.
I will be posting the APA’s listed DSM-IV categories, complete with detailed summaries concerning the agreement of the A?R theory with them, at my next opportunity.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:36 pm: | |
Mephisto wrote:
"I'll ask you again Norder.....Are you able to cite the post where Radka claims that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry? [...] I argue that when you made this claim, you where being disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest. Can you prove me wrong?"
Mr. Norder answered:
“Is this unambiguous enough for you:
"Psychopaths are incapable of real anger--it is too deep and complex an emotion for them."
D. Radka, May 2, 5:39 pm
He also has a more recent statement (one you should be familiar with, as it was a direct response to my posing the question to you and him, but then you apparently weren't paying any attention) that psychopaths don't experience actual anger and the most they are capable of is the same discomfort as having stubbed one's toe.
Now since you yourself say, backed up by a study you referenced...
"You're right. Psychopaths can get angry."
Mephisto, Aug. 3, 11:43 am
...your statement explicitly proves David wrong.”
>>I stand by all my statements about psychopaths and anger from the start of this thread, and have no changes to make to them. They are consistent and correct in every respect, and abundantly documented throughout the literature of the field. I have made perhaps fifty citations from the field on this issue on this thread. No psychiatrist anywhere disagrees with the position to my knowledge. My position, very often misstated by Mr. Norder, is that psychopaths do not and cannot experience qualitatively deep emotions of any kind, including anger, and that their lack of emotional dynamism causes their disordered condition. And this is clearly the sense of my above-cited quote: “Psychopaths are incapable of real anger—it is too deep and complex an emotion for them.” By “real anger” we refer to the emotional life of a normal person, who is capable of the complex and often bewildering interplay of emotional factors that make him or her different from everyone else, an individual with his or her own questions and fate, a subject within the unfathomable and labyrinthine realms of irony and tragedy. A psychopath on the other hand is limited to a banal and sophomoric existence very similar to that of other psychopaths, and fundamentally lacking in a personal destiny, either positive or negative. For example, JtR’s simplistic displacement in lashing out at Martha Tabram because of having a petty tiff with his wife over the custodianship of Aaron is a qualitatively different matter than the complex anger portrayed of Hamlet, Antigone, Hedda Gabler, or Medea. If you want to understand the case evidence, you must be capable of understanding this.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:01 pm: | |
Friends,
Here as promised is the ‘DSM-IV,’ the second of the two diagnostic checklists to which Mr. Norder refers (shown in capitals) together with my analysis (in small case.) His position is that the two checklists refute the A?R theory, because they do not contain personality variables that I ascribe, or that Mr. Norder thinks I ascribe to the Whitechapel murderer. However you will see that JtR as I describe him in the Summary clearly meets all the applicable categories here. A few comments are in order before we begin:
1. The term “mental disorder” as used here is a bit of a conventionalization. Don’t be misled into thinking that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is talking about a condition such as schizophrenia, which has mental symptoms.
2. In ‘DSM-IV’ The APA has blended together two traditionally distinguishable psychiatric disorders, psychopathy and sociopathy, under the term Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD.) Formerly, psychopathy represented a subset of sociopathy. A psychopath was generally considered an antisocial person by way of temperament, and a sociopath by way of learning or environment. The breakout considered all psychopaths sociopaths, but not vice versa; in other words, the smaller term psychopath was nested within the larger term sociopath. In the below checklist, personality elements that apply to either one but not the other have been eliminated, only the common elements remain. Lack of empathy, glibness and superficial charm, inflated self-appraisal and other characteristics often attributed uniquely to the psychopath do not appear here. Therefore, while it would be possible to ascribe APD to the Whitechapel murderer by this checklist, it would not be possible to account for all his characteristics and actions by it. Dr. Hare’s “Psychopathy Checklist” (PCL-R), because it relates solely to psychopathy, would be the better choice for JtR.
3. The ‘DSM-IV’ is more objective than the ‘PCL-R’ because it is positively limited to tangible characteristics. Elements that may depend on subjective interpretive bias on the part of the psychiatrist or on cultural or setting bias, such as charm, are not present. The trade-off negative is that the resulting checklist is much broader in scope, and not as fine an instrument.
4. As I’ve said before, the two checklists alone are inadequate to describe the nature of psychopathy (or APD for that matter,) or to determine the casual relationships in the case evidence. A clinic is for diagnosis and treatment, but a college is for knowledge. In other words, the overriding purpose of the clinical criteria (the categories of the checklists) is simply to tell the difference between one psychiatric condition and another, and thus to suggest a certain course of treatment. This is a vastly different matter, and a much littler thing, than to understand the nature of the underlying disorders. For that you need to extensively study theory and case histories. The clinical criteria alone do not represent “what psychiatrists say” about a given disorder as Mr. Norder has many times told us—they only represent “the way psychiatrists DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN various disorders.”
Source: DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.) Pages 645-650.
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR 301.7 ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER
A. THERE IS A PERVASIVE PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR AND VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS OCURRING SINCE AGE 15 YEARS, AS INDICATED BY THREE (OR MORE) OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) FAILURE TO CONFORM TO SOCIAL NORMS WITH RESPECT TO LAWFUL BEHAVIORS AS INDICATED BY REPEATEDLY PERFORMING ACTS THAT ARE GROUNDS FOR ARREST
>>No problem for JtR here. He murdered six women.
(2) DECEITFULNESS, AS INDICATED BY REPEATED LYING, USE OF ALIASES, OR CONNING OTHERS FOR PERSONAL PROFIT OR PLEASURE
>>JtR attempted to con the anarchistic and capitalistic Jews to fight one another; he attempted to con the Jews and the Gentiles to fight one another; he attempted to con the witnesses into not turning him in, and later planned to con them into identifying Aaron and then turning over the reward money to him; he successfully conned Stride into walking behind the green gates with him despite having just attacked her; and he attempted to con George Lusk into continuing to push for a Home Office reward despite Matthews’ letter. Actions engaged in for both profit and pleasure.
(3) IMPULSIVITY OR FAILURE TO PLAN AHEAD
>>Decided to continue with plans to kill Eddowes despite having been sighted by a man who knew him in the company of two others who didn’t, and to whom he might have mentioned him, relying on later largely inadequate actions (e.g. the graffitus) to bail himself out of trouble; overall strategy of intentionally exposing himself to witnesses at crime scenes with the conviction he could extort them, as opposed to them leveraging him, is grossly and pseudo-logically incompetent.
(4) IRRITABILITY AND AGGRESSIVENESS, AS INDICATED BY REPEATED PHYSICAL FIGHTS OR ASSAULTS
>>Petty irritation and irksomeness responsible for the initiation of each phase of the murder series—(1) killed Tabram when having a minor tiff with his wife over her maternal authority concerning care for her brother; (2) engineered double event when John Pizer captured center of public attention from him; (3) murdered Kelly when Levy failed to approach him beseechingly on behalf of the Jewish people to refrain from further murders.
(5) RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF SELF OR OTHERS
>>Massive indications of foolhardiness throughout the murder series.
(6) CONSISTENT IRRESPONSIBILITY, AS INDICATED BY REPEATED FAILURE TO SUSTAIN CONSISTENT WORK BEHAVIOR OR HONOR FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
>>Inapplicable to JtR, because we have no information about him concerning these matters.
(7) LACK OF REMORSE, AS INDICATED BY BEING INDIFFERENT TO OR RATIONALIZING HAVING HURT, MISTREATED, OR STOLEN FROM ANOTHER
>>Lack of remorse inapplicable, because we have no information concerning whether JtR felt remorseful for what he did. However, a rationalizing habit may be indicated with respect to his unfounded confidence in getting Levy and the other witnesses to understand his graffitus message, and getting Lusk to understand the Lusk letter, the import of which are quite obscure.
B. THE INDIVIDUAL IS AT LEAST AGE 18 YEARS.
>>Certainly JtR was over 17 when he committed the crimes; eyewitness accounts generally refer to a man rather over thirty.
C. THERE IS EVIDENCE OF CONDUCT DISORDER (see p. 90) WITH ONSET BEFORE AGE 15 YEARS.
>>Inapplicable to JtR, because we do not know of his adolescent years.
D. THE OCURRENCE OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY DURING THE COURSE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA OR A MANIC EPISODE.
>>Based on the case evidence, it is very unlikely that JtR was undergoing schizophrenic or manic episodes while committing the murders. If he were, we would likely see clear signs of delusive or other uncontrolled behaviors considering the detail available in the evidence, and these are conspicuously absent. On the other hand, psychopathy alone is conceptually sufficient to explain his actions.
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 312
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Well Hello There, David -
I suppose that whole "let's agree to disagree and move on with more interesting and thought provoking topics as they regard to your theory" idea that I suggested went _RIGHT_ over your head, eh? I see that you have spent the better portion of the last 3 or so posts picking a fight again...
*sigh*
Oh well. At least I tried. Which, I believe, is far more than can be said for you. I believe you still have a lot to learn about sociopathic behavior, David. In my opinion, a large portion of what you write seems to be just rehashed popular opinion. The truth, however, is almost always more fun. Like Ace Venture, I believe: "Fiction can be fun! But I find the reference section much more enlightening!!"
What you type sometimes about your suspect(s) is often a little to dramatic for my tastes. Others as well, it seems. It almost appears to be verging on screenplay type material. That's probably one reason why "Psycho" was a popular movie. Not because it portrayed a real "psychopath" but because it portrayed what we *thought* a real "psychopath" would be like, i.e. popular opinion. I also think that you are intelligent, but I am quite certain that your IQ is not nearly as high as you claim it to be. As a matter of fact, you might be asked to prove the validity of your "and consistently have rated 155 and over on other IQ exams" statement, should you bring it up again. Of course, your Intelligence Quotient has nothing really to do with this thread, now does it? But then again, the actual topic of this thread was lost almost at the word "GO!!", so surely you won't begrudge me for going off topic once in a while.
"2) DECEITFULNESS, AS INDICATED BY REPEATED LYING, USE OF ALIASES, OR CONNING OTHERS FOR PERSONAL PROFIT OR PLEASURE
>>JtR attempted to con the anarchistic and capitalistic Jews to fight one another; he attempted to con the Jews and the Gentiles to fight one another; he attempted to con the witnesses into not turning him in, and later planned to con them into identifying Aaron and then turning over the reward money to him; he successfully conned Stride into walking behind the green gates with him despite having just attacked her; and he attempted to con George Lusk into continuing to push for a Home Office reward despite Matthews’ letter. Actions engaged in for both profit and pleasure."
*Sigh*
Once again you must be remind about the difference between assumption and a definitely ascertained fact. Statements that begin with "JTR attempted" or "he successfully con'd" imply that you have found the solution and/or know the answer to the riddle. Since we have ascertained that you have not either, perhaps you could begin to preface your statements with "I believe" or "My thinking is" so as not to lead new comers astray. Now... unless I've missed something, you still can not prove anything or any one part of your theory. I do not think I am alone in asking (for about the 12th time) that you STOP typing like you have all the answers and know who dunit®. Unless, of course, you can unequivocally prove that one of your 3 suspects was Jack the Ripper (Good luck with that; many others far greater than you have tried). At which point you can make statements like "JTR was most certainly XYZ" all you like.
Alas, I have many more questions and statements to make. Since however, you are not registered, they must unfortunately wait for a few more days. Let us see if you can conjure up one of those thoughtful and concise paragraphs I was referring to earlier as a response instead of sophomoric attempts at insults.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 9:54 pm: | |
Friends,
Two typographical errors have been pointed out to me in the posts about the checklists I made above.
1. In my post of "Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm" I typed under the heading of "Pathological Lying":
"Extremely confident in the USE OF USE OF fantastical and pseudo-logical concepts..."
I should have typed:
"Extremely confident in the USE OF fantastical and pseudo-logical concepts..."
2. In my post of "Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:01 pm" I typed under item 4:
"As I’ve said before, the two checklists alone are inadequate to describe the nature of psychopathy (or APD for that matter,) or to determine the CASUAL relationships in the case evidence."
I should have typed:
"As I’ve said before, the two checklists alone are inadequate to describe the nature of psychopathy (or APD for that matter,) or to determine the CAUSAL relationships in the case evidence."
My apologies,
David
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
What is 'graffitus'? Is this a new word? |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 2:03 pm: | |
Where is Dan Norder?
Several days have passed since my two posts concerning checklist criteria for psychopathy went up on this thread (Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm and Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:01 pm), with no response from Mr. Norder. This seems significant, because he has always responded almost immediately to Mephisto and I concerning this issue since the first week of May 2004. He arranged for email notification of all posts to this thread, and thus has always posted his responses almost as soon as ours have gone up. The reasonable conjecture at this point is that Mr. Norder doesn’t have a response to my two posts concerning the psychopathy checklists; in other words, that he now recognizes the falsity of his position has been exposed and the damage fatal.
A detailed summary of Mr. Norder’s position was included with my Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm post above. Essentially, he has repeatedly stated that my description of the syndrome fundamentally contradicts what psychiatrists say about it, and therefore that ‘A?R’s’ account of the case evidence is wrong, “dead wrong” in his words. Specifically, Mr. Norder has said that I believe (1) that psychopaths are incapable of emotion, (2) that they are incapable of anger, and (3) that they are delusive, each of which is false, and thus that ‘A?R’ contradicts psychiatry. I have repeatedly and emphatically intoned that I do not believe any of these things of psychopaths.
Whereas Mr. Norder has aggressively pursued these issues with lengthy posts sharply challenging me on the average of twice per week since early May; whereas in so doing he has distracted the attention of readers from reasonable issues regarding the A?R theory for over four months, thus making a mess of this thread; and whereas Mephisto and I have proven all his positions false and nonsensical; Therefore I call upon Mr. Norder to post an apology to all readers of this thread. On the other hand, if he wishes to further pursue these issues, let him now timely post precise, specific and effective refutations of the positions I have taken in my two posts regarding the two checklists above.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 288
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Hi David,
The deadline for the October issue of Ripper Notes looms, so I don't have time to go through and point out all the errors and self-contradictions in your most recent posts. But then most of them are the same mistakes you've been making over and over, so my previous messages should suffice if you'd go back and read them.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 315
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
Contrary to your ego Dan has, I'm sure, better things to do than practice exercises in futility. I know that I am busy painting my new house and other miscellaneous new Harry Home Owner® type activity. I only respond to you because I am required to.
Think about it this way: When you ignore me and the dozen others who have asked you questions, do we ask for your formal apology? Nope.
Maybe we all got tired of you dodging specific questions and decided that until you respond to our posts, we just weren't going to respond to yours.
Who knows.. maybe I'm just high on paint fumes? :P
Here's something else to ponder: Due to the nasty turn downwards this thread took, perhaps you've lost your 'readership'.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Quick look-in post, out of order:
Mr. Mullins wrote:
"I only respond to you because I am required to."
>>This sounds bizarre. Who, may I ask, is requiring you to respond to me?
David
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 318
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
Good Morning David -
You recently typed:
"Quick look-in post, out of order:
Mr. Mullins wrote:
"I only respond to you because I am required to."
>>This sounds bizarre. Who, may I ask, is requiring you to respond to me?"
To wit: You may ask. You may not, however, receive an answer.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 88
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
I can only hope that you all will stop beating your heads against the stone wall and let this thread die a deserved death.
After all, don't they day that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
And,no, that's not in the DSM!!! ;-)
Mags |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:59 pm: | |
Ian wrote:
1. “I admit David's posts of late seem to have been toned down (when I saw his comment on civility I checked back on just this page and I couldn't really see an example of his extreme mud slinging insults; perhaps there never were any and it was my imagination).”
>>It was Dan Norder’s imagination, seeded into your trusting head.
2. “That might be a sign the thread can move forward.”
>>If readers want that, I’d be happy to participate with them. We really haven’t begun to discuss most of the real issues of A?R yet, because we’ve had to deal with the distortions of Mr. Norder and his confederates Mr. Mullins, Mr. Hamm, Ms Pegg and others. Of the 950-odd posts to this thread so far, I’d reckon a good 400-500 were either the sabotage of Mr. Norder, the public reaction to them, or Mephisto’s and my attempts to address them.
3. “As to the detailed psycopathy nonsense perhaps that should be moved to a separate thread? I say nonsense because PCL in my opinion doesn't apply here. Even considering Mephisto's/Dan's arguments that the PCL _does_ allow a retrospective analysis based on historical documents and files, where are those documents and files?”
>>The “documents and files” are the entire case evidence taken as a whole. They involve what the murderer did, how and when he did it, what he said and when he said it, and, most importantly, why. They also involve the reactions of the police and public to the psychopath at the time. I’m not convinced that the psychopathy or APD checklists are the way to go in Ripperology. While they are not incorrect, they are not detailed enough to determine the murderer’s intentions based on the evidence in my view.
3. “Ripperology can only even guess how many victims there were and that ranges from 3 to as many as you care to mention. (Tabram, Stride and Kelly are not unanimously agreed to be JtR victims as far as I can see).”
>>Ripperology needs to stop giving credence to any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along with an arbitrary starting point, like the Littlechild letter, “the DNA on the letters,” the pentagram street map, etc. and ask what its starting point reasonably SHOULD be. Evans will tell you one number for victims, Cornwell another, Edwards still another, etc. Why are all these guessers deemed wonderful folks by so many? We need to quit deluding ourselves that guessing can work, and start analyzing. We can’t change the evidence, but we can change how we deal with it, and we can optimize that logically. Almost all previous Ripperology has been either guesswork or outright fabrication (e.g., the Diary was forged.)
4. “If we interpret/select the evidence (as we must) then any PCL diagnosis becomes open to debate (OK now I have both Dan and Mephisto flaming me!)”
>>The trouble with so many people interested in the case is they think that empiricism means no debate, and interpretation means debate, and debate is bad. All the world is taste and tasting, however; we are making interpretations, determining starting points and methodologies, and formulating conclusions all the time. All I’m asking in A?R is that we do all these things THE BEST WAY WE CAN, and not any old way. Then, when we’re done, we might find we have something quite satisfying. This is Ripperology the Radka way.
5. “I'm happy to go with one of David's last posts that a general reading of case histories be used; it will never be a copper bottomed diagnosis but I'd be sceptical of anyone who could diagnose 100% a person who we don't know and don't know what they did (despite David's assertions that we know who he is and know what he did).”
>>Good point, Ian. The best way to study the case is to compare JtR’s actions with those of other psychopaths in their case histories, looking for similarities. That’s the best way to match cause and effect in the case evidence, and know what we have and don’t have.
6. “Some of the problems with this thread is that there is only one thread on A?R, it's flippin enormous, many of the individual posts are enormous, the key player (and a lot of contributors) is not registered and so there is a delay in posting of replies, no-one is really addressing the summary, we only have the summary and no thesis available as of yet.”
>>It is my feeling that Mr. Norder will no longer be a factor here, and thus that legitimate questions regarding the Summary will be forthcoming. Mr. Palmer might wish to get the ball rolling; he’s been the best on this so far.
7. “And... Far be it from me to support David, but he _has_ been consistent in his explanation about anger. In a reply to someone (possibly me) very early on in the thread, he explained it and has been consistent ever since.
His original explanation which confused me was that psychopaths have no emotions which is easily misinterpreted, as I did, to think he was saying they don't have anger or fear. I won't go find his words but he explained in the reply he meant no deep emotions; they can blow up and let off steam at their frustrations and 2 minutes later they're your best buddy. I can understand the point and difference. Using the term anger at describing their reaction leads to the conclusion it's anger they're showing and anger is deep seated emotion but in reality they are mimiking anger and just blowing off steam.”
>>I couldn’t have explained it better myself! The psychopath lives a pseudological abortion of human life under a mask of real sanity, as Cleckley says. The mimicking of genuine, deep human emotions for the purpose of shallow and often highly irrational self-advancement forms the mask.
8. “Dan has been consistently telling us David says psychopaths don't get angry, in a sense he's right and in a sense he's wrong. I assume David would say they can exhibit behaviour which looks like anger, feels like anger and tastes like anger but isn't anger as you or I experience anger - in fact he just did a few posts back ;-) That has always been David's position as far as I know.”
>>Yes, it is my position beginning right with the Summary, item #7, in which I ascribe each of the three phases of the murder series to petty irksomeness, not normal anger. I have made no changes whatever to this position since then, despite Mr. Norder’s posts.
9. “Maybe since David's EC is that JtR was a psychopath, then it is the obvious place we should place our attention, but isn't it time to move onto other aspects of the summary?”
>>I’m with you, Ian. Thank you for an excellent post, your best yet!
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 11:27 pm: | |
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “David, As far as me supposedly flip-flopping on Cleckley, at the start I gave you the benefit of the doubt.”
>>“Benefit of the doubt” in terms of what? You do not refer to anything that happened between us. Beginning the first week of May you began stating FALSLEY that my work was based primarily on Cleckley, and again FALSELY that Cleckley was outdated, not citing any particular element of Cleckley’s work that you held to be outdated. You have never given a single example of anything Cleckley ever wrote that has been replaced with any new position taken by a subsequent psychiatrist. If you have found an example of such a condition in your readings, please state it clearly here now, giving us references in the applicable books. Then in your Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 1:40 am post you cleverly and deceitfully attempted to extricate yourself from the position you held by this little gem: “Your position on psychopathy ISN’T OUTMODED, as there has never been a time when what you describe your theoretical killer doing could have been labeled as psychopathic.” This is doubletalk on your part. You stated over and over for four months that my position was OUTMODED, and you are going to have to either, in all fairness to me and the other readers of this thread, show specifically how it is, or retract the position. You are not allowed to deceive us by nullifying your position in your usual underhanded manner by scrambling it under the cloak of another, different position.
2. “You claimed to have based most of your ideas on what he {Cleckley} said.
>>I have no such position, as I’ve reiterated here many times. My thinking is based on the work of a dozen different psychiatrists.
3. “I pointed out that his conclusions are quite outdated.”
>>You did not point out ANYTHING in Cleckley. You merely FLAPPED YOUR LIPS on the word “outdated.” You have never indicated ANY element of Cleckley that you think is outdated, and explained what newer psychiatric idea may have replaced or superceded it. You have been doing nothing but LYING to everyone on this thread on this issue for the last four months.
4. “As your arguments later became spelled out more and you quoted him and then put into your own words what you think he meant, it became clear that your "original thinking" had strayed very far from what he said.”
>>You point out NOTHING with respect to “what Cleckley said.” You give NO example of how my thinking has “strayed.” You merely flap your lips on the words “Cleckley” and “strayed.” You say NOTHING. You speak of NOTHING as if it were something.
5. “You claim that you've only given 2% of your description of psychopathy and that nobody can judge you on whether you know what you are talking about based upon that small amount. That's ridiculous. A major portion of what you've presented is clearly wrong, and it can't magically become right because of this alleged 98% of other beliefs you haven't expressed yet. Everytime someone catches you in a mistake that you can't deny, you claim you have some secret info about your theory you haven't revealed yet that makes you right anyway. You can only be judged on what you actually say, and that's been shown to be highly inaccurate.”
>>Outright rubbish. The “major portion of what you’ve presented that is clearly wrong” are YOUR LIES about what I have presented, and not what I believe, as I’ve said many times. These lies are (1) The idea that psychopaths have no emotions, (2) That they cannot be angry, and (3) That I describe a chimerical combination psychotic/psychopath in my theory. I have NEVER claimed that I have “secret info” that makes me correct. This is a LIE on your part. And you are not judging me “on what I actually say,” but instead on YOUR LIES about what I say.
6. “The PCL-R and DSM directly contradict what you have said, as has already been pointed out on this thread many times. You try to claim that they don't really contradict you, because the professional committees who created them supposedly conveniently left out vital information that would prove you right because they thought it's so obvious to them they wouldn't have to list it there. That's not at all how these references work. If it's not listed there, it's not important to a diagnosis. And if something is listed there it is considered very important. You apparently want to think otherwise, for the sole reason that you don't want to admit you are wrong.”
>>You had better believe the committees who created the checklists left out information from them. They left out tens of thousands of pages of case histories and theorization that are vital to learning what the syndrome of psychopathy is. That is what you need to study and know in order to be able to discuss the syndrome legitimately. *** You talk about NOTHING here. Tell us SPECIFICALLY what needs to be listed in the checklists that isn’t in order for my understanding to be correct. Show us SPECIFICALLY what my “errors” are. You accuse me of being wrong without saying what I am wrong about. *** You are pushing the snake oil of intellectual incuriousness on the readers of the thread, banking on the idea that they just don’t care to bother themselves with an in-depth understanding of the syndrome. As such, you figure can hand them any vague nebulousness and say any lie you want to them about it. But all ANYONE has to do to realize you are FULL OF BALONEY is pick up a good book on the subject, and read it. You take a fool’s stance.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
A QUESTION OF HONOR
According to a “Last Week” search made 9/25/04, Mr. Norder has now made over nineteen posts to other message boards on this web site since he posted the following on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:40 pm here: “The deadline for the October issue of Ripper Notes looms, so I don't have time to go through and point out all the errors and self-contradictions in your {Mr. Radka’s} most recent posts {referring to Mr. Radka’s two posts concerning the PCL-R and DSM-IV, Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm and Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:01 pm}.”
Nineteen posts. That’s a whole lot of posts for someone who is trying to beat a deadline for publication. Does anyone spot anything amiss in this? Here we have someone who tells us on one thread that he’s just too busy to post, then confidently goes right ahead and posts nineteen times on other threads, right before our eyes. Obviously, he fully believes that he will be able to get everyone, just because he asks them to, to draw a strict line of logical demarcation between what he does on the A?R thread and what he does right next door. We are all supposed to believe that what he does in one place has absolutely no bearing on what he does in other places. We should all think him to be as good as his WORD OF HONOR on what he says on the A?R thread, despite that he instantly and directly contradicts himself on the others.
In light of the above, I’d like to ask all of Mr. Norder’s apparent friends to stand by him in what he has maintained for over four months now. I’m talking about a number of people who’ve strongly supported his criticisms of my view of psychopathy, including Mr. Hamm, Mr. Souden, Mr. Andersson, Mr. George, Ms Long, Mr. Mullins and anyone else. And I’d especially also like to invite Mr. Brown and Mr. Mosley, who started and posted over nine new message boards on another website concerning this issue, involving over a hundred posts. Stand by your man now, if you think he’s worth anything. Please post here your specific refutations of my two posts of the PCL-R and DSM-IV checklist criteria above, in which I demonstrate my knowledge of psychopathy, since Mr. Norder cannot. Please show specifically where Mr. Norder is right, and I am wrong concerning the checklists. The points you must prove in your friend’s favor, the points he has reiterated a hundred times based on his reading of these checklists beginning in April, are:
1. That I believe psychopaths are incapable of any emotions.
2. That I believe psychopaths are incapable of feeling anger.
3. That in order to do what I claim JtR did on the night of the double event, he would have to be experiencing delusions, while psychopaths never experience delusions.
Please show everyone “all the errors and self-contradictions” Mr. Norder refers to in my work above. Thank you.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:38 pm: | |
Where is Dan Norder? (Part II)
Where is Jason Mullins?
Similarities Between the Two
1. Mr. Mullins specifically refers to another person “requiring” him to respond to me. When asked about this, he acknowledges that someone is indeed requiring him to respond to me as he does, but insouciantly refuses to provide any further information. This strongly implies that Mr. Mullins owes loyalty to someone who instructs him to post this thread in a certain way. As he wrote: “I only respond to {Mr. Radka} because I am required to,” (Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 4:51 pm). When asked who is behind his posts, he answered: “To wit: You may ask. You may not, however, receive an answer,” (Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 9:06 am). Obviously, a callous game of deception is being played on all who read this thread in good faith.
2. Both Mr. Mullins and Mr. Norder often attempt to escape accountability by claiming that information to refute my various positions has previously been posted to the boards, when nothing of the sort is true. Both repeatedly refer to nothing as if it were something.
3. Both variously make the same nebulous point that I have “a long way to go” before my theory can be accepted without further explanation, as if the general public acceptance of my theory is a personal issue for both of them. No one else makes this claim about me. (Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:33 am.)
4. Both repeatedly claim that I do not understand the nature of antisocial personality disorder, but in over four months of posts neither has ever identified any particular real mistake in my thinking about it. No one else makes such claims about me, and those who either have personal experience in the field (Ms Severn Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:14 pm, and several following) or have actually read my recommended psychiatric source material (Mr. Palmer: Friday, August 20, 2004 - 1:32 pm) have praised my understanding of the condition on this thread.
5. Both have falsely and maliciously stated that I have not responded to many issues I’ve been questioned about here. (The charge is ridiculous. I respond seriously to anyone who’s got an ounce of sense in questioning, just look at the number, quality and size of the detailed answers I’ve posted in the archives. I post almost as much as everyone else put together. If anyone has a serious question about A?R, let them post it here now. If you wish to criticize my work, then have the courage and decency to give me a chance to defend it. Be specific.)
6. Mullins repeatedly lodges the same exaggerated and vacuous personal charges against me that Norder does. E.g., that I have a swollen ego, that the A?R message board has become a “futile activity,” that public interest in A?R is dwindling, etc.
7. When their positions are shown to be false (by my postings on the two psychopathy checklists above), both Mullins and Norder excuse themselves from further discussion, which would be very embarrassing to them, in much the same manner. E.g., Norder is too busy with ‘Ripper Notes’ to respond (Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:40 pm), and Mullins is too busy with painting his house to respond (Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 4:51 pm), both at almost the same time. It is almost as if Mullins is copying Norder’s last post; this has occurred several times before.
8. Mullins repeatedly goes out of his way to defend and speak highly of Norder, while he never concerns himself with defending or praising anyone else ( Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 4:51 pm, for one example.)
9. Norder has a documented history of using a phony human “plant” to make himself appear to have considerable support on the boards, so as to advance himself politically in a typically underhanded manner. Recently Mr. Brown, a known cohort of Mr. Norder’s, offered lavish praise for a highly questionable position Mr. Norder took concerning his republishing an old article, as if he were a disinterested third party. (‘Sir Robert Anderson, Cassell’s Saturday Journal 1892 Interview,’ Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 10:10 pm.) Further, on another web site forum, Mr. Brown repeatedly made the same charges concerning A?R that Mr. Mullins makes here, e.g., that public interest in the theory is dwindling, that this is somehow an important factor, that I am an egotistical man not deserving of respect despite that neither has ever met me, etc. The implication is that both Mr. Brown and Mr. Mullins are phony “plants” of Mr. Norder being fed their lines by him, or that all three are phony “plants” of some fourth individual with an axe to grind.
10. Both often vaguely refer to what they term fundamental “errors” or “problems” in my thinking about the case that I have failed to address, without specifying anything for which they could thereupon be held accountable to explain or justify. Although no such problems in the A?R theory have been found, casual readers of the current portions of the thread have apparently considered their statements true, and have repeated the baseless charges. This is a classic underhanded political maneuver, sometimes referred to as “seeding the plot.” Both Norder and Mullins reply promptly to my posts, as if to always keep their propaganda immediately before the eyes of the casual reader.
11. Read the archives and make up your own minds as to the implications that may be drawn from the above. To me, however, the inferences are quite clear: When Mr. Norder took over “Ripper notes’ early in 2004 he was faced with a moribund publication and subscription list, and started to attempt to make advances by whatever means including fluffing the public, becoming as famous as possible, and elimination of perceived rivals. The phony “community crusade” against ‘A?R’ on specious grounds here is a part of it, so is the placebo publication of the Anderson article, as well as the getting of others to give him spurious third-party support on the message boards by promising them future favors, column space or other rewards in his magazine. I note that Ms Pegg, perhaps the most obtusely inadequate “critic” I have on this thread, writes a continuing column for ‘RN,’ and that Mr. Brown is an ongoing “contributor” to the magazine, despite that he lacks qualifications to write about the case. Mr. Mullins would be an associate of another sort—perhaps he is being strung along by a promise of becoming an assistant Editor. Therefore what Ripperology is now dealing with, in plain and simple English, is syndicated gangsterism. The principal victim is the truth. The participants would be ashamed of themselves, had they the capacity. Caveat emptor.
Mr. Norder, it is as simple as this: To justify your over four months of repeating that my understanding of psychopathy is “dead wrong” per your reading of the PCL-R and DSM-IV checklists, you must post promptly your detailed refutations of my point-by-point analysis of them above. If you can do that, you win, if you can’t, you lose. This is precisely what you've always been asking for. We’re waiting.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
1.Ms Long quoted Ian as follows: “His (Mr. Radka’s) original explanation which confused me was that psychopaths have no emotions which is easily misinterpreted, as I did, to think he was saying they don't have anger or fear. I won't go find his words but he explained in the reply he meant no deep emotions.”
>>It has never been my position that psychopaths have no emotions. The whole reason why psychopaths are such a problem in society is that they do have and do act out of their emotions, but emotions that are shallow and childish in nature. My position, which I have clearly and consistently stated a great many times on this thread, is that they come into the world with a reduced or no capacity to experience the emotion of fear. Because of this, their personality mis-develops in childhood. Without a sense of fear they cannot learn to comprehend, even in the simplest and most primitive sense, the notion of negative personal future consequences resulting from their present personal actions. In other words, conscience never develops. Without conscience, which is the unavoidability of feeling bad about what one has done or might do, empathy, sympathy, real friendship, refinement or complexity of emotions, resentment, deep envy, serious regret, crushing grief, deep anger and abiding hatred also never develop. The result is a deformed personality based on emotional superficiality rationalized as adequacy. The psychopath can only imagine what external object might seem to present a good opportunity for him at a given point; he cannot imagine having a real or adequate personal destiny, a future of his own based on what he chooses in the present. As such, the psychopathic emotional set is shallow, not nonexistent. A psychopath may attack, or spontaneously decide to change his career or move cross-country, based on little more than an idle whim, stray thought, noticing a nice car parked unlocked, or stubbing his toe. Feeling superficially slighted by a woman is a prime cause of the origin of sexual serial murder in male psychopaths, as we saw was the case of the Whitechapel murderer.
2.Ms Long replied: “Sorry, but anger is a deep emotion. If he said that psychopaths have no emotions (as you said above) then there is nothing to misinterpret as it says it all. That would be a mistake on his part because "no emotions" and "no deep emotions" are two different things. Also, I I explained anger is a deep emotion.”
>>The key to Ms Long’s many errors made on this thread is shown above. She writes: “…if he {Mr. Radka} said that psychopaths have no emotions…,” then she goes ahead and blames me as if that is indeed what I said. But I didn’t say anything of the sort. Mr. Norder deliberately lied to everyone on this thread in falsely reporting that I had said that. The proof of this is right in the archives for all to read. There never was any “mistake on my part.” *** Ms Long is also incorrect when she says “…I explained anger is a deep emotion.” It is not deep for everybody. Normal people incorrectly assume that everyone experiences deep anger because they themselves do, but psychiatrists know differently. Psychopaths experience shallow or “cold” anger, a petty emotion more like irritability. The proof of this is right in the works of Hare, Lykken and Cleckley for all to read. The reason for all the problems on this thread is the great latitude and good faith extended by so many people to Dan Norder. As soon as he sensed that people were unreflectively investing him with carte blanche credibility based merely on his brashness, bravado and Editorship of ‘Ripper Notes,’ he came to feel invincible and his lying escalated to hyperborean levels. The result was his house collapsing on both him and his followers.
3.Ms Long quoted Ian as follows: “they can blow up and let off steam at their frustrations and 2 minutes later they're your best buddy.”
Ms Long replied: “I know first hand that this isn't true. The same person I mentioned in above posts who is psyhopathic can get VERY angry and can go on and on for hours at a time.”
>>Ian is correct, Ms Long incorrect. Don’t you have any clue what psychiatry is, Ms Long? Haven’t you studied Freud, psychoanalysis, emotional refinement, neurosis, etc.? I thought everybody had. In psychiatry, we are not talking about quantity of emotions such as anger but quality. That is the only way we can learn to understand ourselves. Any infant can scream and scream for his bottle, but no infant has the problems Medea had, and she didn’t scream at all. Can’t you see this truth right before your eyes, Ms Long? A large quantity of psychopathic “anger” is still less from a psychiatric viewpoint than a small quantity of normal anger.
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 6:08 am: | |
David,
Don’t you have any clue what psychiatry is, Ms Long? Haven’t you studied Freud, psychoanalysis, emotional refinement, neurosis, etc.? I thought everybody had.
Some people have more important things to do. I am, as it so happens studying to become a psychologist and have been spending a lot of time on that.
I am not incorrect at all. When I said that you stated they had no emotions I was quoting Ian (if you check that again, you'll find the proof for that). How can you say I'm in the wrong when I was quoting Ian all along. This is riddiculus. You clearly have no idea on the subject. I have experience one of the psychopaths first hand and she got angry. I don't care what you say on the matter as you are clearly wrong.
Also, don't "Ms Long" me. I find it patronising. My name is Sarah. Also, I am no Ms.
I will not have another arguement with you. It is obvious that you are trying to coax people into debating with you, as was shown in your posts above to Dan and Jason.
You are arrogant and ignorant. I cannot be bothered to try to reason with you. I shall not be back on this thread so replying really will be futile. If you must continue to talk to yourself, please feel free to do so. It only shows that the only person you're trying to convince is yourself.
Good day.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
David,
what can I say, it's clear that you've got us sussed.It's not that your theory is full of many holes that anyone can spot, oh no, we are trying to create them where otherwise there would be none. In fact you could say I was perhaps the most obtusely inadequate “critic” I have on this thread and you'd probably be right. After all you do need a degree in psychology perhaps even a phd to understand every complex detail of Alternative ? Ripperology.
For months now, me Jeff Hamm, Sarah Long, Glenn Anderson, Don Souden, Jason Mullins, Dan and others (in fact anyone who ever disagreed with you) have been holding secret meetings in order to make up lies about your theory. There is no point in denying it any longer you have us bang to rights. I admit it I really will do anything to get my name in print, I'm evil. Your theory is 100% accurate the only reason we would say otherwise is to advance ourselves.
It so clear that I will be unfortunately making a lesser appearances on this thread in the future.
David, I am so glad you came to save ripperology and offer us an alternative, I bow down to your superior research skills.
Please forgive me,
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
I think it may be a good idea to point out now that my post 1134 is not meant to be taken seriously (I know you weren't doing but maybe it is a legally good idea!)
Previous to the above mentioned post I hadn't posted on this thread for a while, and no, I wasn't planning to again.
I guess there was just something about being called some kind of a column whore (my phrase but I'm sure you'll agree that this was the implication)that I didn't take kindly to. Or perhaps it was being accused of being part of syndicated gangsterism, whatever that is meant to mean. Or perhaps it is that I am in a particularly bad mood, who knows?
Wake up D. we aren't involved in any kind of third rate conspiracy, this talk makes you sound nuts.
I don't know why I am bothering, you clearly think I would do anything for my name in print. I am not asking to like my column, in fact if you don't like it don't read it - i'm not making you. But I'll than you for retracting the implication that the only way I could have gotten one was by turning some kind of trick with Dan (which i am sure you will now do). Well let's look at who it is talking, let's all have a think about how good your theory is and about what you have to resort to in order to give it credibility.
You still haven't apologised for saying what you did about the British.I don't forget these things - I would count how many chances to apologise you've had and failed, but I'm not THAT petty.
I did laugh when I first read this drival that you posted up the other day, but on reflection i think you owe me another apology.
I think it, see I am capable of independent thought.
Yes, I do talk to Dan. I do like him (well it's kind of needed for a good working relationship) but never have i been told by him or anyone else what to put on this or any other thread, and frankly even if i had been (and I'll just repeat it never happened) I wouldn't do it, so get your facts straight before you start accusing us of something.
On a scale of one to ten (where ten is the highest and one is the lowest) I wouldn't give your theory more than a two David, sorry. Try and understand that for a second will you?
You say we're waiting, who? every other single person who has ever mentioned this thread to me is waiting for it to go away, it is only you who are waiting and begging for a response - so here is one. If you are interested in apologising for calling me mentally slow as well as a column whore that's always a bonus (though I guess you don't think I would comprehend)?
Whatever, I have certainly ranted on for as long as you do now!
In your own time apologise and that will be great,
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 323
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
David -
I am finally convinced that you are, in fact, a deeply disturbed individual. I'd like to point out exactly how paranoid your behavior has been. Running around claiming that someone is masterminding a group of individuals for the sole purpose of defaming your character. Accusing people of gangsterism, etc. WTF are you smoking man?
What's more probable: That Dan has and is manipulating groups of people against you OR that your behavior and far out conspiracy theories have led a bunch of people to decided, all by their lonesome, that you have an intellect rivaled only by garden tools?
Noodle that one through before you answer.
Please seek help David. Before you hurt yourself or someone else. Apologizing to everyone you indirectly accused of a federal crime wouldn't hurt either.
As a matter of fact, I expect your apology ASAP. An accusation as serious as a racketeering (A felony in most states with a long prison term) should not be taken lightly and should not be made with out proof. So I ask.. where is your proof that I am a member of or am myself a racketeer?
These are serious allegations David and I hope you have the proof the back them up. Because if you don't, I feel a great swell of pity for you.
crix0r
(Message edited by crix0r on September 29, 2004)
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
What research skills? He says he did it all from secondary sources. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Cludgy wrote:
1. “Mr Radka in my opinion has always been in this for the money. Why do you think he copywrites his posts? I realised this the moment I read the last word of his Summary, and said as much at the time, many moons ago on this thread.”
>>Cludgy, if I were in this for the money, why did I post the Summary to a public web site where it could be read at no charge? I have not made a penny on ‘A?R’ to date; if I were much interested in profit, don’t you think I would take the shortest and most direct route to that goal? Isn’t that what most everybody who wants profit does? I published it the way I did and when I did for various reasons, all of which will be clear to you someday, and which primarily include my being able to share what I consider my solution of the case with everybody and answer questions here. I am deeply grateful to Mr. Ryder for this opportunity. Additionally, why would it matter to my solution whether I was interested in profit or not? ‘A?R’ is what it is whether there is profit involved, or whether it’s free. It offers the same logical propositions for evaluation either way. You are free to here criticize it as you will. It is either right or it is wrong, whether you pay to read it or not.
2. “Does he really believe what he writes? Of course not.”
>>This blanket statement indicates immaturity. It places the writer in the position of omniscience. How do you expect others to place any trust in what you say after you’ve posted this, Cludgy? It reduces your status as a commentator. *** Please state specifically why you think ‘A?R’ is not believable, and why you think I myself don’t believe it. Please give me a fair chance to defend my work.
3. “He is also in my opinion building up his noteriety on this web site. It seems he is also testing out his theory's believibility on the good people who contribute to this site.”
>>You are simply assuming that I have published a false theory for the purpose of learning how to better fool people. But if this were the case, surely by now I would have posted something that didn’t make any logical or empirical sense. Where do you find such an inconsistency or mistake in my work, Cludgy? I’ve made scores of posts explaining everything I’ve been asked about that made any sense at all—where have I hung myself? Mr. Norder, on the other hand as you can see, has clearly hoisted himself up by his private parts on what he’s said. Give a deceiver enough rope…
4. “It has not had a very good response to date.”
>>I really don’t expect ‘A?R’ to have a “good response” for a long time. It is too revolutionary, and upsets too many apple carts. What you see on this thread is what typically happens when a significant paradigm shifts. Another example would be the invention of the bicycle. When they first appeared in the nineteenth century, many couldn’t understand why they didn’t fall over when ridden, and smelled a rotten egg somewhere. Thus bicycles came to be perceived as instruments of the devil. Many bicycles were “executed” for their evil by “hanging,” strung up with a noose to cause their “death.” Television is another good example. My grandfather, born in 1887, did not believe in television. He was capable of believing Eisenhower was President if he saw it in the newspaper, but not if he saw it on television. He could see the light flickering on the picture tube, but that was about all he thought it was. He couldn’t imagine it as an instrument of the delivery of true information. Television was too novel for him, and it simply overwhelmed his sensibilities—he just couldn’t cope with it adequately on a personal level like we can. This despite the fact that he enjoyed certain television programs, such as professional wrestling. He looked forward to visiting our house once a week to watch that, not being competent with respect to having his own TV in his own house, despite that he could have afforded one. Sooner or later people will get over the novelty of ‘A?R’ and be able to appreciate it for what it is: a rational way of estimating what the various pieces of empirical case evidence are worth. I understand that will take time. Someone reading this will see it happen in his or her time, I probably won’t.
5. “Although having said that ( going on past publications on the subject of JTR ) it should make a fortune. That's without magazine articles, chat show appearences(we might get to see what he looks like) and little plastic figures of Plato, of course. The sky's the limit, there's a sucker(for a hair brained theory) born every minute.”
>>Curious about “what I look like,” are you? Why should you care about just another in the long line of false prophets and snake oil salesmen of Ripperology? That is what I am, by your own evaluation. Does anyone concern himself or herself with what a refuted Ripperologist like Donald McCormick looked like? Nobody posts a picture of Leonard Matters. So why not just forget about me? It seems to me, despite your outwardly condescending and disdainful attitude, that if you are intrigued with my appearance, you are also intrigued with my theory—you think it may be right and want to behold the man responsible for it. Send me your address and you’ll receive your plastic Plato figurine.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 468
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Hi,
I can't believe I'm bothering, but here you go. Early in this thread, during one of David's many diatribes he posted the following in response to something I had suggested.
Quote By David Radka,
Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 5:39 pm:
>>Psychopaths are incapable of real anger--it is too deep and complex an emotion for them. Additionally, they do not "express" their inner feelings as normal people do, they in fact simply externalize. You are thinking wrongly here.
-------------- end of quote -----------------
Now, the statement psychopaths are incapable of real anger is unambiguous. In David's view, psychopaths are "incapable of real anger", so the only anger left they are "capable of" is "fake anger". And if it is fake anger, then by definition it is not anger now is it.
The rest of the debate has just been David trying to claim he said something else.
- Jeff |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 324
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
Shhhhhhh Jeff..
You'll mess up his happy.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 72
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
"and that Mr. Brown is an ongoing “contributor” to the magazine, despite that he lacks qualifications to write about the case."
One out of two ain't bad,Radka....
I'm going to tell you what everyone should have asked you from Day One...
Remember now, this is coming from one of the " non-Whores" of Ripperology [ who are the whores ,by the way,Radka? ].......
Ready?
WHY did you assume....that a member of the Kosminski clan.....would react the way they did.....to a troubled family member...with anger,frustration,rage,violence....upon strangers....and NOT with kindness,empathy,concern,familial accord,and warmth...to that troubled family member?
This is what everyone I know asks....
This is what everyone I know SHOULD have said,way back when this thread was started.
This is coming from someone who is not qualified to write,discuss,research,or analyze this case.
Doesn't this make you just a little embarassed?
To have an anti-intellectual bring this up....
To have someone who didn't recieve 40,000 balloons, for a thesis on Nietzsche,as you SAY you did,bring it up ?
To have someone who, as manager of a website, enforce a ban on discussing your theory,either in a positive or negative way,because......
.......it has nothing to do with the Case.
I wouldn't know Dan Norder if he was standing right next to me.
I wouldn't know 90 percent of the "whores" of Ripperology,if they were standing right beside me.
You are aware of the fact that I told Steve Ryder that I would avoid commenting on your theory.....and I have.....and I will.
I'm not going to re-construct the multiple page threads of insults and disparagements YOU have made about Ripperology over at the Forums.
Why?
Because Ripperological studies is a TEAM game,Radka.
Because YOU bring all this animus upon yourself,Radka.....LOOK at the posts people have made in response to your dogmatic adherence to 2 psychologists' opinions about SOMEONE YOU AND THEY DO NOT KNOW...
Not one of these good,intelligent people,came to this thread with a "hard-on" for you. I suspect,from perusing this thread from time to time that you WANT them to.
Check yourself out,Radka...then worry about Jack The Ripper....
P.S. My thug instincts have taken over and they say.....
"Nyah,nyah....I was in Ripper Notes and you weren't !!!!" |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
Jeff--I'm no champion of Radka's theory--I think you know that. Indeed, it surprises the hell out of me that Radka tips his hat in my direction, considering the fact that he elsewhere calls me a sophist and suggests that my posts be scrutinized for dishonesty...
At any rate, Radka's quote about psychopathic anger is pretty much straight Cleckley. The whole schtick of the Cleckley's book is an attempt to explain or define the bizarre behavior of some of the patients he's come across in his practice. He also uses plenty of literary examples as well as a discussion of some fairly well-known criminals. I'm no expert; in fact, I'm rather skeptical of the entire field of psychology, but it seems to me that part of the problem here is that Cleckley's definition of "psychopathy" is a lot broader than the folks that Mr. Norder is dealing with. This isn't a strange thing. It's surreal to me that there seems to be some unwritten assumption here that psychologists and psychiatrists agree on the definitions. Maybe there is more uniformity & agreement than when I was in college 15 odd years ago-- I don't know. But I recall alot of disagreement. One branch, the Behavioralists (B.F. Skinner & clan) probably would conclude that the whole argument about anger is moot, since outward behavior was all the mattered, and the so-call 'inner workings' were irrelevant. If I understand them correctly, whether than man was exhibiting real anger or whether he was only mimicking anger would be (to Skinner) irrelevant and unknowable, and speculations along these lines would be nothing more than an unhelpful diversion from treatment. (I'm not saying that I agree with this view, only that it's out there).
What Cleckley seems to believe is that a wide range of behaviors can all be linked under a common trait of shallowness. A big feature of psychopathy for Cleckley is a lack of emotional depth. "They" are as intelligent as anyone else, but "they" have no insides. Ie., "The Stepford Psychopaths. Good Doctor Cleckley describes everone from the poet Swinburne to murderer Neville Heath to a petty female criminal and bookworm (who can't differentiate between the emotional strength of King Lear and a dime-store novel), to a local upstanding citizen who one day breaks into a dog kennel and runs around on all fours naked as a jay-bird. To Cleckley, what is wrong with these people is a sort of soul-less, shallowness. Their lack of empathy is evidently merely a symptom of a deeper problem. This is why (I think) Radka is stating that Psychopaths don't express any real anger. The key word is real; to Cleckley these people are only a "mask" of a genuine, three-dimensional person, hence the title of his book, "The Mask of Sanity."
A bit of editorializing. Only my opinion. The book is interesting and recommended for its lurid reading, but much of Dr. Cleckley's book is rather hard for me to take seriously. Cleckley is a latter-day Erasmus worried and wearied by his fellow beings and it seems somewhat relevant to me that this text was a product of 1950s McCarthy-era rural Georgia. There is a certain disdain for the world going to "hell in a handbasket," For instance, from Cleckley's white-picketted estate in Atlanta, Oscar Wilde and indeed all homosexuals are border-line psychopaths. I can't imagine anyone would take this too seriously; at least I don't. (It's impossible for me to believe someone like E.M. Forster could fall into a definition of psychopathy). Some of his other conclusions are simply wrong: for instance about the insanity of James Joyce. Maybe I lack imagination, but my main problem is that his definition is too broad to be of much value; Cleckley's patients and subjects exhibit such a bizarre and wide range of behaviors that it's difficult to accept that they can all be lumped together under a general diagnosis. (Indeed, this is my main problem with Psychology. I don't really except the notion of psychological "types"--human behavior is too complex and idiosyncratic). I don't think Radka has the right bloke, but my partial acceptance of Radka's hunch about the type of person Jack the Ripper might have been isn't really based on a study of psychology, but, rather, on reading criminal case histories. If Cleckley is too broad to be meaningful, I think Glenn Andersson's definition of "lust killer" is too narrow to be meaningful. There are all sorts of bizarre criminals that don't fall into any neat catagory, and are seemingly fueled by obscure, contradictory, and bizarre motivations. If we knew the full history of Neill Cream and Michael Ostrog we might have examples. I forget the name at the moment, but there was a French madman and criminal who was everything from a crooked politician to a poisoner to a shoplifter to a rapist and mutilating murderer to an arsonist. He was finally arrested for running a horrific murder for profit scheme during the French occupation.
I think the overwhelming problem Mr. Radka is faced with is this. Since a psychopath --by his own definition---is capable of bizarre, "baffling", and unpredictable acts, how on earth is he going to convince his readership that he can correctly decide what elements in the history of the Whitechapel Murders are the product of the unidentified psychopath? Couldn't he be opening himself up to the accusation that he is merely just picking and chosing? (Indeed, this seems to be the main criticism of Andersson & Norder). Radka's theory would be more convincing if he could definitely demonstrate that: 1) the man seen by Schwartz (and who cried "Lipsky!") was the actual murderer; 2) the Goulston Message, and the Lusk Kidney were all the work of the murderer; 3)that Levy was the witness; etc., etc. etc. Of course this is an impossible task, and Radka admits that it's not a matter of "proof." (proof, schmoof) Faced with these facts we would have to ask ourselves what these indisputable facts tell us about the nature of man we were dealing with. As it now stands, it seems to me the theory is trapped in limbo because all we have is a catalogue of loosely related or acausually related events open to too many interpretations. Still, despite his combative tone, I have to give Radka some credit, because, like Fido, Evans, and a few others, he doesn't balk at wrestling with the harder enigmas of the case. It's only unfortunate that (as Rupert Gould once noted) all inventors of perpetual motion machines feel obliged to begin their treatise with an attack on Sir Isaac Newton---(if you know what I mean). Regards &tc. RP |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 469
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
Indeed, the problem with Clerkly is that the research is outdated. It was an early work, and as you point out, includes a hodgepodge of individuals who are hard to see as representing one group (meaning, a group suffereing from a single, common underlying problem or disorder).
This has been pointed out before, and is one of the fundamental problems of David's theory as presented. It relies too heavily upon this one source. If the source is flawed, what he builds upon it will suffer the same flaws. (By "flaws", I am not saying Clerkly was an idiot, or dishonest, or any such thing, I just mean the earliest research, no matter how well it is done, will have errors, or flaws, in it. That's why more research is conducted, to smooth out those rough areas).
Now, I do not doubt that what David "intended" with his statement is sometihng along what you've outlined above. However, David's alledged philosophical background would provide him with the realisation that arguments must be phrased very carefully to ensure that what is "intended" is unambiguously carried by the words chosen. The words chosen, however, in their strictest interpretation do not convey this possible "intended meaning" but rather the more absolute interpration I, and others, have pointed out to David. Now, one learns early in philosophy training to base counter-arguments upon such sloppy use of language. As David claims quite a high level of philosophy training, then he would be familear with this, therefor it is safe to assume that what David "intended" was the interpretation above. If this is not what David intended, then he would have to "clarify his intended meaning" and concede that his original statements do not reflect what they were supposed to reflect. A long winded way of saying, his original statement is "wrong" because it does not convey the "correct" meaning.
The basic approach that David is presenting is simply a "bootstrap" style of theory testing. Which is, can I make a coherant and consistent explanation for all the data if I simply start by accepting a single (or small set) of initial premises. If everything starts to "link together" and does not contradict itself, the theory should be considered as a satisfactory explanation. Doesn't mean it's right, only that it is capable of explaing the data.
And sure, the Jack the Ripper murders could be explained if we start from the premise that JtR was a psychopath. But they can also be explained if we start from psychotic as well, or just about from any other starting point; especially if we don't worry about emperical proof to constrain our claims. And, either way, simply starting with a disorder doesn't provide one with a suspect. Nothing in the evidence requires any connections be made between the murderer and Levey, for example. This means those connections are vapor. They could dissappear and still a nice consistent story could be told, though it would be different from what David presents.
Now, by trying to use a bootstrap type approach, it becomes very important that the notion of what the disorder of Psychopath is be well established. And, since Clerky's work is an early work, it's not unlikely that this definition and some of the examples in his book, are going to be erroneous. If I were looking up on how to do "brain surgery", I don't think I would base my ideas on what the best doctor of the times thought in 1888; even if he was the first to write a book on the topic.
Once David's theory is stripped of all the ideas that are not required by the evidence, it boils down to "Jack the Ripper could have been a psychopath". And since even that statement is not necessarily true, it's hard to see this as a solution, and certainly not an original idea.
- Jeff
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
Mr. Palmer wrote:
1. “Don't be so freakin' dense, Radka. "It is a tactic that is beneath contempt. I was clearly indicting the Roman society, not Christ.” {Mr. Radka responded:} >>Baloney, Mr. P. To who does your term “he” refer? Roman society is an “it,” not a “he.” What famous pacifist is associated with ancient Rome other than Jesus?" {Mr. Palmer responded:} Of course I was referring to Jesus Christ!!! The original point (now lost) referred to the inadequacy of defining a psychopath as someone who doesn't conform to the rules of society. (It was not even your statement, but a component of the list posted by Glenn). Christ didn't conform to the rules of Roman society. The comment was ironic. Reading & thinking rather than giving knee-jerk reactions will serve you better in the long run, my friend. I was under the mistaken impression that even a moron would have understood the comment. I do apologize for that mistake.”
>>I must admit this exchange has gone over my little head. I agree that a definition of a psychopath as simply someone who doesn’t conform to the rules of society is incomplete and inadequate. I’m willing to trust you for the rest, Mr. P.
2. “{Mr. R.:} "To imply that Levy would feel no kinship in this regard is ridiculous on your part." {Mr. P.:} To repeat, read "Point of Arrival" and other books written by Jewish inhabitants in the East End. You have created a cartoonish model of London's Jewish population. It prevents you from solving the case,”
>>You are confusing some of the parts for the whole, I fear. The whole includes both the ideas that Levy feels a kinship with other Jews and the practical situation he adventitiously finds himself in at the moment. Levy is like Hans Brinker. As I remember the story, Brinker was walking along the Dutch waterfront and noticed seawater passing through a hole in the dike. When this happens, the hole invariably quickly becomes bigger and bigger, and then the dike breaks. When that happens the whole city is endangered, because it is built below sea level. So Brinker has no alternative but to stick his hand into the hole to stop it up. He can’t do anything more than that, and he has to do that because if he doesn’t, end of the city, end of Brinker. So he stands there faithfully for a long time with his hand in the hole until others come along and he can communicate the situation to them. Just as Brinker has no choice but to act immediately to save his city and himself, Levy, as he interprets the situation, has no choice but to act immediately to save the Jewish community and himself. So Levy sticks his hand in the hole—he shuts up, and doesn’t tell anyone whom he saw.
3. {Mr. R.:} "The reporter DID see the duplicity, and DID mention it!" {Mr. P.:} Bullpucky. He stated that Levy wouldn't speak to him which he interpretted as duplicity. As you do. When the reporter had approached him, the inquest hadn't been held yet--Levy was being responsible. The same paper (The Evening News) was outraged that Matthew Packer wasn't allowed to address the Stride inquest after constantly blabbinging to the press and evolving his story as he went along. The police specifically stated they didn't think it appropriate that Packer should testify--he blabbed and changed his story. Of course the "Evening News" would make Packer their darling, and Levy their goat! They were in the business of selling newspapers. And you can't print a paper without an interview. The Levys of the world are their bane. (Harris spoke to the papers, and wasn't called to the inquest). 2+2+2=6, Mr. Radka.”
>>I don’t doubt that you are 100% correct in what you say, Mr. P. The problem is in what you don’t say, 2+2+2+2+2=10. Beyond your local-sized account of Levy, Packer and the “Evening News” is the more regional-sized matter of Levy’s absurd discussion with Harris in Duke Street, and the more national-sized matter of the identification. I put them all together; I don’t work piecemeal. This holism I think is the best way to solve the case. I therefore am delighted to agree with you 100%, as far as you go.
4. “(Concerning Levy, Radka writes: "You are making it up out of whole cloth, and in so doing ruining the empirical basis for the case we all must use. " {Mr. P. responds:} Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer! Try again. My interpretation for Levy is entirely in the accordance with the Empirical evidence. (Mephisto even agreed with this). You're merely presenting your own interpretation of the events, arguing that they are beyond dispute. That's fine. But it's not fine to state that my interpretation is changing or manipulating the evidence when it isn't.”
>>My interpretation for Levy is also “entirely in the accordance with the Empirical evidence,” as you say. The difference between us is that mine is better because it is more comprehensive, including as it does reasonable explanations for the marks on Eddowes’ face, the graffitus, the comments to the reporter, the identification, and so on. I believe you are indeed “changing and manipulating the evidence” when you cut Levy off from these other things. To me, the evidence says to take them all together. If you show me a photo of Marlene Dietrich with a smile on her face, that’s nice. But if I then notice that you altered the photograph by removing the figure of Adolph Hitler standing behind her with his hand up her dress, then I know you’ve “changed and manipulated the evidence,” and the meaning of the photo is different. *** I sincerely appreciate your sound effects, Mr. P. When you say “Bzzzzzt!” to Dave Radka, you’re speaking his language. I intend NO IRONY in this, you have hit right on the kind of person I am, and I’m touched. DING!
5. “By the way, I give you Dr. Anderson: "But on the other hand the public generally and especially the inhabitants of the East End have shown a marked desire to assist in every way, even at some sacrifice to themselves..." -- Anderson, 23 October, 1888. This an memo to the Home Office written twelve days after the closing of the Eddowes inquest. As I said, at the time it all went down, the police had no inkling that Levy was deceiving them---if they had, they would have been on him like flies on dung. Yet, 116 years after-the-fact it's allegedly so bloody obvious that only a "fool" "full of baloney" could believe otherwise. I call this tactic of yours "scholarship through intimidation." Insult them enough, and perhaps they'll become afraid to disagree. A dangerous species of the historical method you're breeding.”
>>I’m sorry. My professors kicked my a** so hard for so many years that I’ve adopted a kind of sadism/masochism concerning intellectual matters. I don’t mean anything by it. *** I don’t have an historical method like Sugden, but a rational idealist one. Enter “G.W.F. Hegel” in Google Images, and page through the portraits of the man. It is the face of logic. Look into those eyes. Do you see any compromise there? *** I agree with you 100% that the police didn’t know Levy was deceiving them at the stated time. But it must also be considered that Levy would have gone out of his way to be cooperative in the sense of a normal citizen, in order to disguise his intentions. I agree that the Polish Jews of the East End did in fact assist the police, and if you take Anderson on this quote alone it seems to justify thinking that he accepted this view entirely. But he didn’t accept it entirely, did he? He wrote in “The Lighter Side…” that it was well known that the Polish Jews would not turn over one of their own to Gentile justice, didn’t he? And it seems plain that he got this idea from his subordinate Swanson when he (Anderson) returned from his holiday, and was briefed on the house-to-house searches. I take everything all together; you like pieces of things. Or for me, the whole’s the thing; for you, it’s thing and thing and thing. And that’s okay with me.
6. {Mr. R:} "Frankly in all of this business about Levy, you are essentially being used as a cardboard cut out for Evans to do his dirty work; you promote his unsupported positions for him, so that he doesn’t need to face me either as “G. Longman” or himself. ' {Mr. P.:} Huh? What? Take a month off and hike in the woods, Radka. Breath in the fresh, healing air. Even for you, this is a surprisingly unbalanced comment. I post only for myself, posting my own views. I have never discussed your theory with Longman, Evans, or the Man in the Moon. I would humbly suggest you stop with these paranoid speculations before you end up like Kinky Kosminski. What get's your goat here is that I know the "case evidence" as well as you do, and evidently wish I would conveniently shut up.
>>I positively seek out people who know the case evidence better than I do, so I can learn from them and get expert feedback on my work. I do not have a sense of intellectual inferiority. You do not get my goat. I appreciate your wide-ranging knowledge of the case, Mr. P, and hope that we may have more discussions in the future. I note that Mephisto appraises your character in a positive sense, and Mephisto is a very good judge of character. *** With respect to Mr. Evans, despite that he has written several excellent books of service to the field (especially his book on Mr. Reid), he has what I consider an untenable position in Ripperology. He simply cannot maintain that he is both a Tumbletonian and an independent, unbiased Ripperologist at the same time. That is not possible. Nobody else does this in Ripperology. Look at all of them: Sugden (Chapman), Rumbelow (Druitt), Harris (D’Onston), Begg (Kosminski on Stride), Fido (Cohen), Edwards (D’Onston), Knight (Sickert, Gull, Netley), etc. They all write objective history, but they also all admit at all times that they have a favorite candidate. The reader knows what he’s getting from them, and what he’s not. Not so Evans. Mr. E will tell you that he is a Tumbletonian when he writes about Tumblety, and that he is a pure independent when he writes about Reid. That is impossible, wrong, even maybe morally wrong. I think there is a reason Mr. E does this. I think it is because he knows Tumblety is a prohibitively terrible candidate for being JtR. Tumblety was a gay man, and the likelihood of his mounting a campaign of sexual murders against women is very remote. If you want to tell me he did that, then you’ve got to give me excellent, near-conclusive empirical data linking him to the crimes. You’ve got to have witnesses talking about a giant-sized man seen near the crime scene, or Littlechild talking about how they picked Francis up 30 minutes after Nichols’ body was discovered with blood on his sleeve. If you can’t do that, you’ve got nothing as far as I’m concerned. You’re asking me to believe pigs flying.
7. “That bit of bile off my chest, I do think the criticisms of Radka's theory have become a little extreme. No doubt he's largely responding from the perception that people have unfairly attacked him, without giving his ideas a fair shake. I certainly wouldn't say that Radka is all bad. I lump him with the serious theorists. Having actually read Cleckley, I don't see where the man he's attempting to describe wouldn't fall within the general type. (On the otherhand, in the world of Dr. Cleckley, James Joyce, Swinburne, and Oscar Wilde were insane, too).”
>>Cleckley was a dedicated secular humanist psychiatrist. He would be looking for what is human in all things—in human behavior, art, poetry, literature, war, peace, philosophy, science, history, everything. His greatest contribution was his comparison of his sense of humanity to the personality of the psychopath, from which he derived his perspective and theories about the condition. Someone like Cleckley is likely going to think the prose of Joyce out of bounds in a fundamental way. I don’t think this is the only way to look at Joyce, but I can appreciate the perspective for what it’s worth. Cleckley would be against the bits & bytes, post-post-postmodernist / deconstructionist culture we have today—he would think there is a kernel of humanity in everything. *** Thank you for your positive evaluation of my theory. I am happy that we can discuss matters in a gentlemanly way, despite that we disagree on some important things.
8. “I would more or less agree with Radka's general perceptions about what must be the 'center' of the case, which is why I do find his ideas worth discussing, although I tend to violently disagree with many of his conclusions. But that's just bees & pollen, as he says. Any field becomes stagnant when those who don't immediately fall in line get cut-off at the roots, and this has become the atmosphere of what some like to call "Ripperology."’
>>I must thank Mephisto for his excellent explanations made to you of my theory, which are better than I could have written myself. ‘A?R’ is a mine of ideas, most of which haven’t been uncovered yet.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:13 pm: | |
Jeff--Hi. But is it really a matter of "Cleckley being out-dated"? I'm not so sure. If one looks up the entry on psychopathy in The Oxford Companion to the Mind (published fairly recently by the Oxford University Press--1998), the studies of psychopathy that it references are all pretty much contemporaries of Cleckley's (from the 1950's & 1960s). One, I seem to remember, even dates to the 1930s. But I admit that my background is in the humanities, not the sciences, so I tend to get a bit nervous when people speak about "progress" in understanding human nature. Is Montaigne outdated? Or Shakespeare? What I did like about Cleckley is that he's sincere; he's trying to describe a disturbing condition that he's seen in his practice but which seems to almost defy a definition, let alone an explanation. It's a bit like the old Supreme Court quip: "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." I'm a little more extreme than you, I suppose. In general, it seems to me that Psychologists have made a lot less progress in regards to understanding criminal behavior than they would have us believe.
David--I've only time for one quick response.
"or Littlechild talking about how they picked Francis up 30 minutes after Nichols’ body was discovered with blood on his sleeve. " We're drifting away from your theory a bit, but this seems to be too confident an argument from a position of ignorance. (Our collective ignorance) Since I don't know why Littlechild considered T a likely suspect, I can't fully discount the possibility that he was found with blood on his sleeve in the Whitechapel Road----particularly since Littlechild seems to be suggesting a knowledge of T's arrest files when he calls him a "likely suspect." Not too unlike me not knowing precisely why Anderson stated that a Jewish suspect had been positively identified. It might be a inconvenient fact, but it's a fact nonetheless, and one that must be considered. As for Stewart Evans, I think it's fair to say that he has greatly influenced my thinking about the case, for which I make no apologies. Not to say that Fido and Begg don't have their charms. Good evening. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on October 04, 2004) |
. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Friends,
Since we have been on the subject of psychopathic checklists lately, I’d like to augment our analysis of the matter by posting the two below. Once again, checklists are a bad way to try to learn about psychopathy—careful reading of theory and case histories are required for that. You don’t really know what a checklist is talking about until you’ve studied the context it is situated in. On the other hand, if you are getting to be savvy concerning the subject, they do serve the purpose of helping you develop comparisons and contrasts among different perspectives of the syndrome. The first is a clinician’s impression, developed from directly interviewing scores of psychopaths and discovering their case histories. The second is a reader’s impression, based on my reading a number of books on the subject. Since in my view all Ripperologists need to be serious readers and students of psychopathy, it may be of help to them. I have now posted all known psychopathy checklists to this thread—if anyone finds another one, please let us know.
Hervey M. Cleckley’s “Clinical Profile” of the Psychopath, from
“The Mask of Sanity” (Augusta, Georgia: Emily S. Cleckley, 1988), pgs. 337-338.
1. Superficial charm and good “intelligence”
2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
3. Absence of “nervousness” or psychoneurotic manifestations
4. Unreliability
5. Untruthfulness and insincerity
6. Lack of remorse or shame
7. Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
8. Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
9. Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
10. General poverty in major affective reactions
11. Specific loss of insight
12. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
13. Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink and sometimes without
14. Suicide rarely carried out
15. Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated
16. Failure to follow any life plan
David M. Radka’s “Clusters of Characteristic Features for Study” of the Psychopath, from
“Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders,” Copyright 2004.
[ A ] Emotional life leveled to shallow ranges.
[ B ] Fearlessness; Foolhardiness.
[ C ] Deficit in subjective integration, or inability to learn;
Absurd actions; Incompatibility of chosen aims.
[ D ] Absence of conscience.
[ E ] Presence of pseudologia phantastica.
[ F ] Life oriented radically to the here and now; Consequent personal disintegrativeness.
[ G ] Utmost emotional immaturity; Incomplete reactions;
Decisions based on capriciousness, impulsivity, or whim.
[ H ] Inadequate motivations, such as being merely moderately irked, as the cause of antisocial misconduct.
[I] Ineffability, untranslatability, paradoxicalness, self-contradictoriness, and untreatability of the syndrome.
[ J ] Characteristic identifiability of the syndrome; Similarity among psychopaths.
[ K ] Behaviors dramatic, ’over-the-top,’ or beyond ken.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
Error Correction
It's been pointed out to me that I've erred on empirical information concerning Tumblety on this thread. I've said in at least one post that he was six foot four. According to the most recent edition of the 'A-Z,' however, he was five foot ten. This would still have him considerably taller than average male height of the epoch, but five ten is not six four. My apologies for the error. I am trying to determine the source from which I took the erroneous information.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 4:42 pm: | |
Ian wrote:
1. “[snip]The EC is that JtR was a psychopath not a lust murderer.” {Mr. Radka responded:} >>Certainly not. Apparently, you have not read the Summary attentively. See item 40. The Whitechapel murderer was personally inconsistent with respect to motivation for his crimes. At certain points and in certain ways the lust murder motive was present. <<” {Ian responded:} As the author, YOU should also be MORE attentive to YOUR own summary. I refer you to item #1. and to quote "What is the EC of the case?...(1)[snip]...the Whitechapel murderer was a psychopath". (period, no later snippage, that's all YOU wrote) Please re-answer once you've read your own summary.”
>>Psychopathy implies personal inconsistency. A psychopath has a deficit in subjective integration. He is essentially a disintegrative personality, one who is breaking himself down, being ruined by himself, not being built up or held together by any internal human concept of himself for good or for evil as in the case of you and I. He doesn’t have an adequate sense of a personal past or a personal future, or a destiny of his own, as would a subjectively integrated person. Therefore he may be responding to various unrelated, fluctuating, or even self-contradictory motivations in a single act on his part, not perceiving anything amiss with himself or his actions. Thus a part of what I say when I say the Epistemological Center is psychopathy is that one of the things we’re going to be doing in our study of the Whitechapel murders is looking for unrelated and self-contradictory motivations in the case evidence. JtR exhibits a potpourri of these at different times, and some at the same time, as we find: He’s got a Jekyll / Hyde motivation, a particularly obnoxious and antisocial anti-maternal motivation, an extortion motivation, a lust / fetishistic motivation, an exhibitionist motivation, etc. Mr. Andersson wants to study the case evidence as an example of lust murder motivation and nothing more. I disagree; the real Whitechapel murderer seems to me an emotionally fragmented, personally inconsistent individual who was doing whatever was coming to mind. This is not to say he was cognitively disorganized; his crimes scenes do not indicate mental deterioration or disorganization.
2. “Note: please also reread YOUR item #40 {reproduced below} as well and then try and work out why anyone else would be confused to see item #40 inserted almost as an aside.”
{Per the A?R Summary, Dissertations Section}:
40. Was the Whitechapel Murderer a Lust Murderer? (1) Yes, but only in a weakened, nonexclusive use of terminology categorizing murderers. While we must consider the Whitechapel murderer a lust murderer merely because he mutilated his victims’ genitals, the crime scene evidence taken as a whole does not permit us to pigeonhole him as any particular kind of murderer. On balance it does not appear that he was univocally motivated by lust or any other single factor to do all he did; if his surroundings are considered in the analysis he appears to have instead demonstrated a fundamental pathological subjective inconsistency of motivation as the external circumstances of life played on him, splitting himself off tangentially as he perceived various opportunities. (2) Crime scene evidence conclusively indicates complex personal deficiencies typical of psychopathy and a notable absence of lustful behaviors or related hot breakdowns under stress where they might reasonably be expected to occur. A killer principally motivated by lust under these circumstances may rape his victim, ejaculate at the crime scene or become otherwise excited or aroused, in his orgiastic acting-out of feeling he may inadvertently create some noise or unnecessary disturbance, he may compulsively overstay his pre-planned time and be apprehended, and he would likely not be simultaneously projecting himself into, or be capable of carrying out an extortion racket on multiple stages, updating it as needed at the crime scenes on consideration of conditions he encountered there. (3) At the same time also, pseudological elements such as his projection as Dr. Jekyll socially stigmatizing female hysteria and his schemes to coerce witnesses to get the reward are insufficient to explain his fetishistic lustful preoccupations with the female body. This part of the evidence is more typical of puerile intercourse fantasies of vainglorious destruction and defilement by the phallus. (4) The same thing said in a briefer way, for the sake of clarity: If he’s going to mutilate sex organs, then surely he’s going to show us what sort of lustful feelings he’s got in doing so. But that doesn’t satisfactorily explain why he murders, in the presence of evidence indicating different issues. In short, he did not necessarily murder women because he had the sensibilities of a crude twelve year-old boy, but he did have those sensibilities. And because of the repeated emphasis on the abdomen, these feelings must have become at least to some extent an obsession, for him conceivably an inconsistency in his inconsistency.
{Ian continues}: “Please reread YOUR item #23 {Miller’s Court} where you explain the extensive mutilations without even mentioning the word lust once!!! See also item #11 {Mitre Square}, again no lust motive is introduced or even mentioned. Is it any wonder item #40 rather knocked me off balance and seemed to be a catch-all logical "excuse" by saying, well he was a part time lust murderer of sorts. I did you the favor of reading your summary, please do me the respect of also reading it before you reply.”
>>These are good points. Part of the imbalance you are experiencing is because all you have to read is the Summary. It is organized so tersely that it seems to jump around. In retrospect, I tried to keep it from doing so in logical space, but I couldn’t keep it from jumping around in literary space. There is no way anyone can say that JtR was not a lust murderer. By definition of this term, if the genitals are mutilated then it is a case of lust murder. JtR thus was a lust murderer apparently consistently, but according to the evidence he also had various and changing sets of other plans, occasioned by his perceptions of various opportunities in the unprecedented public, government and police interest in his crimes. When I am explaining the mutilations in #11 and #23 I’m basically doing it in a way to differentiate each of those particular crime scenes from the others in terms of the murderer’s differential planning at the time (e.g., setting up witnesses in Duke Street to get the reward, setting up a reaction from prostitutes in Miller’s Court to disrupt the Lord Mayor’s procession), I’m not trying to explain ALL his motivations at those two crime scenes. His lust-murdering attribute shows up here and there, so I figured I’d only need to discuss it once. There is more of it in Miller’s Court I feel at least in part because he had more time there. It also seems his lust murdering motivation was in a state of crescendo as he went along, doesn’t it? Perhaps that aspect of his series was becoming increasingly compulsive for him. It would be, I think, an apparent consistency but really an inconsistency in his inconsistency; his inconsistency is the greater factor insofar as solving the case is concerned, as it shows up repeatedly throughout the murder series as reactions to outside influences and differential changes of plans. You are perceptive in your analysis. Thanks for a good question, it made me think.
3. {Ian}: “Re: other communications NOT GENUINE. {Mr. Radka:} >>They are reading a theory explaining the Whitechapel murders. That theory has certain elements. They reason through the elements, and that’s that. What’s the problem? Does a Druittist theorist have to explain why Kosminski didn’t do it?<< {Ian}: Why assume I'd think that last point? please read my post with your brain switched on if that's possible. YOU mentioned it in YOUR summary for some inexplicable reason. Pick a number betweem 1-44 and count the words in that item in the summary. Pick another number and count the words.
Try another. Then count the words in item #22 (hint: word count = two for item #22) Notice something odd? YOU felt a need to tell YOUR audience this nugget of non-information, not me. It only jarred with me when I printed out the summary. No reason as to why you felt compelled to include it and no reason why you or I should logically discount the other communications.”
>>There is indeed a good reason to discount the other communications. The Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky writings, for examples, have nothing to do with the murderer’s plans as causally determined by the A?R theory. Given the murderer’s planning as detailed in the A?R theory, for what purpose would he have written these two items? Can’t come up with a reasonable answer? Then he didn’t write them. It is as simple as that. On the other hand, the A?R theory does provide a reasonable basis for considering the graffitus and the Lusk letter genuine, therefore they are genuine. What do you want to believe, Ian? Do you want to believe what is reasonable, or do you not care whether what you believe is a reasonable belief on your part? If the former, I feel you’ve got to give A?R some serious consideration. On the other hand, maybe he did write the other communications. But if he did, since we can’t determine by the evidence what his purposes might have been in doing so, then even though they are genuine in the sense of authorship they are not genuine in the sense of the solution to the case. JtR very well may have had certain additional motivations, perhaps ersatz and adventitious in the extreme that we do not and cannot know about. The solution to the case is a perspective because the data we have is incomplete, and we are responsible for the perspectives we take, and we have to take a perspective on whatever we think about, and reason is the best arbiter among perspectives. Logically speaking, it works out the same both ways: only the Lusk letter and graffitus are genuine.
4. “Why not enumerate all the case evidence which in your reading of the case is not genuine or not relevant? Somethings afoot on item #22 but I can't solve it or explain it for you David; only you can tell us why you included it. To quote (almost) your own words at YOUR summary: Does a Druittist theorist have to explain why Kosminski was NOT GENUINE?
I'd think not, but you obviously do. Please reanswer after reviewing your summary.”
>>Is the game of perspectives a zero-sum game? Would it be possible to accept the A?R theory and NOT think that all the letters beyond the graffitus and the Lusk letter were false, or at least totally irrelevant to the perspective that is the solution to the case? Deep questions. To me, these questions point in the same direction, either way you answer them.
5. To close, and I won't reply to every other response, one sentence grabbed my attention: {Mr. Radka wrote:} >>If you think of the Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky missives, then you think outside the A?R theory. That’s it.<< {Ian responded:} May I refer YOU to item #1 of YOUR summary and "...examinataion of the evidence is undertaken in a questioning, responsively open and playfull mode..." Questioning/responsively open/playfull? yet if you even think of Dear Boss then you're outside A?R. I think the contradiction is obvious even to a 2 year old. Alternative? shmalternative and another example of intellectual and logical thuggery. To quote the famous philosopher (guess who ;-)): {Mr. Radka wrote:} "You are attempting to pride yourself on beating a man better than you, but then you don’t beat him."
>>Haha! Very funny. I don’t mean to insult you. I am not trying to do a thug job on anybody. I believe the reasonable alternatives are there for those who want to think them through. Just because I’m going to be questioning and playful doesn’t take away my ability to say yes and no. I believe the Ripperologist has got to say no to communications from the murderer beyond the Lusk letter and the graffitus, because no plausible, reasonable explanation connects them to the evidence. If you have got such connections yourself, we’d love to discuss them with you here. Thanks for a thoughtful post!
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
