|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 9:35 am: |       |
Mr Radka
Even assuming that JTR succeeded(in the early hours of the morning 9th Nov) in drawing attention to the mutilated corpse of Mary Kelly lying in Millers Court, what kind of logic draws you to the conclusion that her discovery would have lead to a full scale riot, with a hundred people dead?
Why a riot? I think you are being a little bit dramatic Mr Radka, your comments smack of melodrama rather than reality, and your theory is little more than that don't you think? It's not a bad little story actually.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but history dictates that riots(regardless of the injustices heaped upon the poorer classes of those districts) resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people in the districts of Spitalfields and Whitechapel is a decided non starter.
My gut feeling is that there would have been no riots.
But of course you are going to say(and this is your ace card regarding criticism of your theory) that we are dealing with a physcopath, and that what is important is the fact that he would have envisaged a riot upon someone discovering Mary Kelly in the early hours of Nov 9th.
Regards Cludgy |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Mr. Hamm, in his most useful post to date, wrote:
1. “Hi RJ, Good point about Anderson's identification of a suspect, and the nature of witness testimony. I think Anderson's statements should be viewed as "witness testimony" unless other documentation backs up his impression of the event. Unfortunately, as the whole "identification" event sounds a bit "hush hush", it's quite unlikely there is such documentation. Therefore, this statement must be viewed with the same critical eye as any witness testimony. Although I can't rule out the "outright lie", I think there are other alternatives that should give pause before accepting Anderson's impression of "what just happened" as reflecting the actual events.”
>>I agree insofar as Anderson’s statements need to be viewed critically and corroborated somehow. Although we have enough empirical evidence short of A?R to critically ascertain that SOMETHING must have happened to convince Anderson that the murderer had been identified, and that the suspect likely was Aaron Kosminski, that doesn’t mean that both he and Swanson could not have been fooling themselves into thinking they had more than they had. There could have been plenty wrong with that identification that we don’t know about, or on the other hand it may have been conclusive beyond what we know. Ripperology has basically tried to corroborate Anderson in two ways: (1) Trying to fit up Aaron for the murderer. But this fails, because he seems by all accounts a relatively harmless paranoid schizophrenic preoccupied with himself and unlikely to hatch a plot as violent and daring as the Whitechapel murders, and (2) Trying to fit up somebody else for the murderer, and this turns into David Cohen / Nathan Kaminsky. But while by the tiny few facts we have about him this fellow seems more the part, there is nothing tangible to connect him to the case evidence. The question can’t be adequately answered merely by saying that Anderson was on the one hand honest and competent enough not to lie about the identification or get it fouled up, or on the other that he was so crooked and uncoordinated we can’t trust anything he said about it, because in both cases we are endeavoring to divide by zero, to estimate the inestimable. So the case is stuck in limbo indefinitely, unless we can come up with something fresh to explain what he thought was going on, how he came to his conclusions, what he was looking at. This is what moves A?R. It builds logical bridges from the crime scene evidence to the identification, establishing an ‘alternative’ (one of the reasons for its title) perspective on the matter. A?R tries to deliver what Ripperology has been anticipating for almost a century.
2. “For example, let's say Anderson called upon Lawenden to identify some suspect. Lawenden repeats his claim that he can't recognize the fellow with something like the line "I don't know. That might be the guy, but I can't be sure. No, I wouldn't testify in court that is him. Why? Because he might get convicted and hanged because of me, and I'm not sure he's the same guy I saw. It was a long time ago, and I didn't get a good look then". Etc. That kind of thing. In other words, Lawenden might simply have been unable to provide a positive identification, and refused to change his story. Possibly even explaining why he couldn't identify the suspect. Anderson, for whatever reason, may simply have attributed Lawenden's reluctance to the fact that both were Jews.”
>>This is purely theoretical on your part. It may have happened as you say, but it conflicts with what Anderson said. So what should we believe? We seem stuck forever with Anderson saying he knew for certain who JtR was, that his identity was a “definitely ascertained fact” with “no doubt whatever” about the matter. You can’t take this off the record. The man said what he said.
3. “I mean, I can't see someone going "That's the guy I saw! What? He's a Jew? Well, forget it. I'm not going to testify against a fellow Jew." That's just too implausible,…”
>>I agree it’s pretty implausible from the witness’ standpoint, on the surface. But this is what Anderson said happened, we’re stuck with it, and we have to work within it. We do not have the luxury of contradicting fundamental accounts of what happened by Anderson if we are to be logical and responsible concerning our work. As soon as we start fundamentally changing what he said, we leave the bounds of interpretation and enter those of fictionalization. We can compare what he says to other accounts, if there are any, to determine what might have happened, and we might under certain circumstances be able to slightly bend certain elements of what he says on small matters of interpretation here or there if we have some corroborating evidence or perspective on a given matter, but in the end, all things considered, our own level of logical satisfaction with our work determines how much we permit this to be done. We have to comprehend when interpretation is turning into fictionalization, and stop short of that. I think from Anderson’s standpoint at least that he would have accepted the notion of a Jew not being willing to testify against a fellow Jew. After all, he says in his book that he and his confidantes in the police force (likely Swanson) previously ‘diagnosed’ as a result of the house-to-house searches that the murderer was a Polish Jew being sheltered from the law by other Jews. And the witness can be accounted for by Levy wishing to turn Aaron in to free himself from the leech-grip of the psychopathic murderer, without committing himself to testify in court (where he’d be identified by people who knew him as an associate of the murderer’s family.) Remember, Levy was evidently a blurter by disposition. He blurted to Harris that he didn’t like the looks of the couple standing at the head of Church Passage despite their doing nothing out of the ordinary, and Anderson’s witness apparently blurts “That’s him!” the minute he is confronted with the suspect, then has to change his mind regarding testimony. To me, your perspective of “implausibility” suffers from a lack of evidentiary holism. You are trying to do what Ripperology has tried to do for a century without success.
4. “…and the police would be all over the witness to get him to testify. I would think the courts could force him to testify, and this identification could be entered.”
>>You mean ANDERSON would be all over him, because the identification was done secretly with likely only Anderson and his loyal subordinate Swanson privy. And thus if Anderson believes it better not to force the issue, then the issue doesn’t get forced. I believe what Anderson would do beginning at the point of Levy’s blurt at Hove would be to try just what you suggest—put pressure on him. But what could he use to bring that pressure? He didn’t have any physical evidence. He could bring other witnesses to Hove, but this wouldn’t have worked if Levy were lying about whom he saw. The family wouldn’t testify in court in order to protect the real murderer (while telling Anderson they wouldn’t testify because they were Jews), so what’s left from Anderson’s perspective? Imagine Anderson picturing himself sitting at the prosecution table waving his fist at Levy, Aaron sitting in the dock hallucinating and Levy just smiling back at both of them from the witness stand. How’s that going to work for Uncle Robert? You think Anderson was not a careerist? You think he was maybe stupid? I don’t. I think self-interested self-positioning and a**-protecting on his part, and there is abundant evidence in his book that he was this sort of chap, has a lot to do with the winding up of the case.
5. “His subsequent refusal, pending upon what he originally said, might even be cause to bring chargest against for "obstruction" or something? (Or not, I'm not sure of the finer details of the legal arguements around something like this). Anyway, I think it more reasonable (opinion flag here) that Anderson knew both were Jewish, and may have attributed the reluctance of the witness to that fact, rather than to the fact that the witness truely was not sure if the suspect was the guy.”
>>Again possible, but this isn’t what the man said. *** Like many Ripperologists, you seem to equate reason with opinion. They do this because they see the use of reason as strictly second-class when compared to the use of empirical data. This is unfortunate. If we can convert the case to a set of ideas, we can then evaluate and work with those ideas reasonably. This elevates reason in Ripperology from its second-class status, and in some ways overcomes or transcends opinion. We can at least generate logically estimable opinions, or opinions to which we can ascribe coefficients of reliability. We can at least become reasonably pragmatic. While at first this may seem a small accomplishment, not very effective concerning a case solution, actually it isn’t. Once we get started analyzing the case evidence this way, asking reasonable questions and opening doors, we might be able to take matters a long way, or at least far enough to discover a connection somewhere that makes a real difference.
6. “Why might Anderson have thought this? The frustration of the case, and perhaps he had some reason to think this particular suspect "looked good for it", coupled with general biases of the times that the poor and the Jewish would balk at helping out the "law", could have led Anderson to assume such a reason, rather than the suspect give the reason directly (finding they were both Jews, etc).”
>>Pure theory. Many theories are possible, but only the one that analyzes all the case evidence, offering a complete explanation, can be correct. *** When will all the people who don’t like Anderson finally grow up and realize that what we need is to logically develop a means of fairly criticizing him instead of simply denying what he said? He said what he said. If what your position amounts to is “let’s not believe what he said, let’s figure he’s telling a major lie about the windup of the case for some reason,” then you are really not critically estimating anything. Your position has all the authority of division by zero; in other words, an undefined criticism is really NO criticism, or an illusion of such. What Anderson said cannot be made—ever—to go away by denial. The more you deny it, the more it will rear its ugly head. How many people make this mistake, and thereby get caught on its flypaper? Evans, Edwards and his “team,” and a host of others do, and as soon as they do they stop grappling directly with the evidence and punt the ball away, and then they’re stuck in theoretical speculation. But A?R is designed to provide the necessary fairness by establishing the long-lost alternative perspective. It is designed to apply a vise grip to what is important and not let go. It keeps reflecting on it, endlessly. A?R is an infinite mirroring, an infinite regress of mirrors within mirrors; it is empiricism reaching the end of its line of evidence, and, beginning again turning back to behold itself, becoming for itself, because of itself, to itself, and by itself.
7. “The problem with the whole "event", however, is like so much about this case. There are no recordings of this event happening in any sort of official capacity. Private notes and personal memoirs are poor substitutes for official documentation. Even official documenation must be questioned before accepted as capturing truth on a page.”
>>Beware, Mr. Hamm, of writing off “private notes and personal memoirs” too easily. They say what they say, and some of them won’t go away. In Anderson’s case, these are the writings of a top-level police official in perfect position to know what he’s talking about. Not so in the Diary’s case, the two cannot be compared. This is a critical thought.
8. “So, in the end, we have a suggestion that some sort of identification may have been attempted. But exactly who was the suspect, who was the witness, what was said, and where and when this all was to have taken place, is hardly cemented into place.”
>>And it’s never going to be, as long as Ripperologists see matters exclusively empirically. You speak the truth as the British empiricist conceives of it. If the Anglican George Bishop Berkeley were a Ripperologist, he’d perhaps take the same perspective.
9. “A?R bases itself on the witness being someone other than the most likely witness (Lawenden),…”
>>Just a minute, Mr. Hamm. The idea that Lawende was the most likely witness is based purely on the idea that since other police groups used him for identifications concerning the Whitechapel murders, Anderson must have also used him. Sugden accepts this notion uncritically. But it was Levy who spoke absurdly to Harris in Duke Street about the couple, not Lawende, indicating he might have recognized the man. An holistic view of the case evidence makes Levy the likely candidate for Anderson’s witness. And Anderson may indeed have asked Lawende to have a look at Aaron, possibly in a separate meeting at Hove. But if Aaron were not the man who stood with Eddowes at the head of Church Passage, then Lawende would have not responded positively to him.
Hove is, incidentally, a good place to put Aaron if you want to expose him to various witnesses. He can be kept for a time there, including overnight under supervision while arrangements are made for a number of people to separately appear, so as not to prejudice one another as to identification. In fact, maybe Levy himself never appeared at Hove, only other witnesses did, Levy having possibly already pointed out Aaron in the street to Anderson. Perhaps Anderson tried everybody in addition to Levy—Lawende, Harris, Hutchinson, Schwartz, Mrs. Long, the Pipe man, the two apocryphal Jews in the Orange Market, a shoeshine boy of Hanbury Street, the works. He’d have batted zero with them all except Levy, confronting them with Aaron. Anderson could rationalize concerning the negative responses that none of them got a good enough view of the murderer to identify. In other words, that “the only witness who ever had a good view of the murderer” did identify him. If Levy makes it a point to tell him that he was absolutely certain that Aaron was the man he saw in Duke Street, leaving “no doubt whatever” as to identification, then how is Anderson going to explain that away in his mind, especially if he thereupon visits Aaron’s family and they express their discrete suspicions concerning him, thereby confirming Levy?
10. “…and that the events transpired as described by Anderson's unofficial recordings of the events. Perhaps those recordings are only Anderson's unofficial impression of the events, and impressions can be wrong. It also assumes, of course, that the suspect was actually the "right guy".”
>>You are making up whatever baloney sounds good to you in order to shoot me down here. ANYBODY can say stuff like “we just don’t know” or “it wasn’t official,” or “you are making assumptions.” Empirical bull, empirical bull I say. But it takes skill and logical ability to ask the RIGHT questions.
11. “In otherwords, A?R, without any logical reason, sets one of many equally possible alternatives to be true, and then tells a story around it. Sure, it touches on material related to the case, but that doesn't mean the story has been at all constrained by the material. Because, the material is insufficient to constrain the story.”
>>Here you are trying to argue against the whole by arguing against a part, and you ought to know what I’m going to do concerning that by now. I’m going to counter argue that the whole justifies the part as I use it. I’m working with way more than just the identification. I’ve got the whole of the case evidence lined up in my mirrors, and the whole equation reflects. Everything depends on everything else. Therefore I think I’ve reached totality, and I’m done. A?R doesn’t just “touch on material related to the case” as you say, it critically reconciles ALL material related to the case. It completes itself, crosses the finish line, cashes out all its assumptions, and gives us back out more than we put in.
12. “My above alternative, for example, could easily be presented as equally valid concerning the identification of Anderson's suspect. Is it what really happened? I have no idea. But then, I don't think just because I can tell a story that the story becomes true.”
>>It is NOT “equally valid” because it doesn’t reconcile the whole of the case evidence as A?R does. For example, if we observe Sam entering the office of the gas company, we may assert that he went there to pay his monthly gas bill, because a great many people including Sam do that. The assertion seems “valid” to us. But if we were to reconcile additional evidence about Sam’s use of gas to this observation, we might come to reasonably doubt the validity of our assertion. If we were aware, for example, that a truck from the gas company was recently seen parked in front of Sam’s house, and a strong odor of natural gas had been noticed in the neighborhood, then we’d have to consider that there may have been a gas leak in Sam’s line somewhere, and that he had gone to the gas company to discuss that, and not to simply pay his bill. We’d have to judge our original assertion as no longer operative, because it would not be fully satisfying regarding all the empirical information we have available. This is how A?R works. A?R gets to the end, it analyzes ALL the information about the case, thus it is the BEST and MOST satisfying explanation of what was observed in 1888.
I’ve got to hand it to you, Mr. Hamm, you’re getting better in your old age. After scores of embarrassingly inept posts, you’ve finally come up with some errors that are actually near enough the mark to be made genuinely useful to my readers by way of my criticism. I think it is because you’ve had to read so many of my answers that I’m at last beginning to get through to you. I thank you.
|
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 347
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 10:06 pm: | |
Damn it Ian.. you made coke come out of my nose 
Rest Assured David, I'll get to you. Right now I've better things to do, like sleep. I won't let your little post slip past me though....
Legion
"Our name is legion, for we are many" |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 11:45 pm: | |
Mr. Hamm wrote:
1. “Ahhhhh, releif! Finally, after months and months, you have resorted to actually addressing the issue. When you say "real anger", what you mean is "intense anger", rather than "real as in the opposite of fake".
>>No, I don’t mean “intense anger,” and I don’t mean “fake anger.” I mean, following the psychiatrists who study psychopaths, inadequate anger, inadequate emotions, a qualitatively deficient emotional life. Ever tied a fly? The first time I tied one I tried to imitate a Mickey Finn I saw pictured in a fly tier’s encyclopedia from England. I thought I was doing everything right as I went along, adding the right colors of buck tail and tinsel, and it looked good to me when I was done. Then I showed it to an experienced fly fisherman, and he told me several reasons why it wouldn’t work. Too fat looking, too much material used, crumply head instead of smoothly symmetrical, buck tail fibers too long for the size of hook and spaced improperly, and a few other comments. He was picturing how the lure would behave in the stream water based on his experience; I was trying to follow the static picture in the book, because that is all I had to go by at that point. It’s the same difference concerning normal versus psychopathic emotions. The psychopath just doesn’t have a personal moment where his emotions can interplay dynamically to generate “experience,” just as my fly wouldn’t dynamically flex and move in the stream water to utilize its material qualities to successfully imitate a baitfish. In a sense, the psychopath just can’t ever get the experience of human life in terms of emotions that my experienced fishing advisor had under his belt in terms of fly fishing. The psychopath just can’t ever get “there.” All the psychopath has to work with are unreal PICTURES of human emotions; flat, static representations similar to the pictures of flys in my fly tiers encyclopedia. Like my first attempt at the Mickey Finn, he “feels” these things on his level, in his dimension, but that way of feeling just isn’t dimensional enough. You can’t catch a trout tying the picture of a Mickey Finn found in a book to your leader, you have to learn how to dynamically interpret that picture for yourself and convert it into a working fly, considering highly complex factors related to how the fly is supposed to interrelate with its environment under the relevant aquatic circumstances. Normal children learn how to work from the picture to the real experience in terms of emotions, as I eventually learned how to work from the picture of the Mickey Finn to a relatively simple but fish-catching fly, but the psychopathic child stays with the pictures for life, and has no sense of anything amiss. The psychopathic picture of emotions is heavily cognitive in nature, with a bare minimum of emotional content—only the sharply limited emotions of the infant are available to the psychopath in his endeavor to interpret the pictures for himself. What he winds up with after 30 or so years is this deadly and subtly intermixed combination: (1) a qualitatively deficient and for him misleading set of emotions, and (2) the well-practiced expertise to mimic all human emotions to professional standard. It is an involuntary mimicry, a mimicry in which the mimic is only dully aware or largely unaware that he is engaging in mimicry, and is partially or mostly unable to recognize and gage the real implications of his mimicry to himself and others, and thus is unable to change himself to make a better adaptation. Psychiatrists theorize about why this attenuated emotional growth curve and associated cognitive compensatory mechanism applies to some people, and they come up with various perspectives as possible explanations. But what we are talking about is a profound syndrome, so all-encompassing that a normal person might never be able to grasp it, for “grasping” it includes recognizing that a great part of it remains theoretical in nature. It doesn’t have an easy answer such as simple distinctions between “intense” versus “real” emotions, as you are trying to give to it, despite that these terms may be a PART of how the problem is sometimes discussed. It is a complex deficiency involving a peculiar mis-development of a multitude of personal factors and attributes; we talking about the human identity structure. You need to spend many hours with psychiatric textbooks to get a sense of the problem, you can’t rely on commonsense heuristic guesswork.
2. “Now how hard was that, to simply point out that your original statement was ambiguous. That perhaps the word "real" is not the best qualifier because it leads to the interpretation that everyone but yourself came to. All you had to do was point out that by "real" you mean "intense".
>>I think you are here trying to make yourself believe you’ve solved the deep problem of psychopathy and now have an adequate conception of it. You have not.
3. “So, you are going with the view that psychopaths have "muted emotions", or "reduced intensity in the qualia of their emotions". And which, yes, there are those who present this view (see the references I gave above). However, as also indicated in the references above, there is the exact opposite view as well.”
>>YOU are misinterpreting. NO psychiatrist says that psychopaths have an adequate emotional life. ALL say that they have an automatic cognitive compensatory mechanism of mimicry for what they can’t personally feel. This is the bottom line in what a psychopath is, and the bottom line in how A?R deals with psychopathy. In another sense, however, you can talk about these people experiencing in certain circumstances “too low” emotions than they should, or in others “too high” emotions than they should. You can say that the psychopath just doesn’t come into the world with a sufficiently strong set of emotions, so his emotions are “too low” to ever fully and deeply develop. Or you can say that these people come into the world with an inadequate sense of emotional inhibitory factors, and thus that their emotions are “too high” for them to ever fully and deeply develop. But in the end YOU ARE SAYING EXACTLY THE SAME THING EITHER WAY. Cleckley took the former position, Lykken doesn’t entirely agree with him. He thinks at least SOME psychopaths are capable of experiencing strong emotions, but even then, these aren’t real emotions.
4. “This whole issue would have been much simpler had you just pointed out that perhaps using the phrase "real anger" was a mistake because it's an ambiguous phrase. By doing so, you could have then re-phrased to get across the meaning you intended, and the discussion could have then proceeded. By choosing an aggressive and insulting approach, however, nothing was accomplished except for this thread to be much longer than it need be.”
>>I think the length of the thread is educational, to me in terms of my learning how my readers react to what I say about the subject material, and for them in terms of learning about the solution to the case. The phrase “real emotions” is PREGNANT with ambiguity, it is not DEFICIENTLY ambiguous. It is trying to give birth to an intuitive idea of understanding a paradox. It points you in two directions FOR A PURPOSE. *** I have NO CHANGES to make to my account of the murderer’s psychopathic emotions per the Summary.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:38 pm: | |
Mr. Hamm wrote:
1. “And, David asked me to tell a consistent story that differed from his, but doesn't contain the connection between Levey and "Jack". Below is such a story, but just to be clear, I do not believe this story to be necessarily true. It's just an example of what one can do with the A?R approach. Now, as for an “alternative” explanation, let’s start with your initial premise that we’re dealing with a psychopath. And, let’s not worry about whether or not a psychopath actually “feels” more or less emotion than others, since that is in some ways an unanswerable question at this time. What we do know about psychopaths is that many seem to have a reduced emotional response to external events that normally produce emotional responses in others.”
>>Up to this point, it doesn’t appear you’ve said anything I believe I’d have to disagree with. I wouldn’t call this a real good-looking approach to the Whitechapel murders, but it is not seriously flawed as far as I can see.
2. “Paradoxically, they seem to “over-react” in other situations, usually those where they are denied something, or where they perceive they are the target of an “injustice” (meaning, they didn’t get what they wanted, or they perceive themselves as being “picked on”). Note, they generally don’t care if getting what they want ends up causing a similar injustice for someone else. This is why many believe the core deficit in a psychopath is a lack of empathy.”
>>Psychopaths are small-minded, petty, emotionally immature people. If I were you I’d stay with this general description of them from psychiatry, and not get so particular as to make assumptions of specific personal qualities right at the start, because it might prejudice your case solution. There are plenty of reasons why all sorts of people “over-react” when they are “denied something they want,” or feel they are being “picked on,” or “treated unjustly,” and they are not psychopaths. They could have paranoid personality disorder, a persecution complex, be a long-term methamphetamine abuser, simply be neurotic, or have a host of other psychological problems, some severe, others mild. Where do you declare your specific referent group? Describe its characteristics, please. And I certainly would not say that people who feel treated unjustly or picked on also lack empathy—there is nothing about having these qualities in itself that would necessarily engender that. In the case of psychopaths, lack of empathy is a central feature; a complex deficiency in the identity structure itself, in which the subject does not envision himself reflexively at the same level as others. He cannot perceive himself as exchangeable as a human subject—instead he projects externally and self-centeredly as if having a personal entitlement totally unique in the universe. You are slinging horseradish when you say: “…many believe the core deficit in a psychopath is a lack of empathy”—this is NOT true. You are trying to persuade us to mistake an effect for a cause here. A psychopath has a lack of empathy as the effect of many causal factors related to his emotional development and personal identity, no psychiatrist believes he simply lacks empathy out of nowhere as the causal starting point for his other problems. In the above paragraph, you are not making a description of any known particular psychological problem. You are simply designing a model to be whatever you want it to be in an arbitrary manner. As such, it lacks real predicative power. And Mr. Hamm, as I’ve said many times before, you do this because YOU HAVEN’T READ TEXTS IN PSYCHIATRY CONCERNING PSYCHOPATHS. YOU ARE MERELY FLAPPING YOUR LIPS CONCERNING THEIR CHARACTER AND PSYCHIATIC PROFILE, MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG.
3. “Regardless, let’s keep in mind our “hypothetical Jack”, has these two characteristics
1) external events do not cause the usual emotional response. If any emotional response is generated, we can assume it will be muted.
2) If a situation occurs where our “Jack” feels personally wronged, his response will be more than usual (either because he actually “feels more” or because he’s “mimicking what he thinks is the correct and normal response””
>>Your #2 contradicts your #1! If he’s going to have “muted responses,” then he’s NOT going to “feel more” if he thinks he’s been wronged! The position is already impossible. You are not talking about any real, documented personality type here. You are slinging horseradish. *** You mischaracterize psychopaths when you say “external events do not cause the usual emotional response.” It seems strange to formulate it this way. Cleckley said it better: “The psychopath does not react to conditions ordinarily presumed to exist.” It is not as if the psychopath has erected a barrier between external events and his emotions, as you imply. It is rather that his emotions are too simplistic to afford him an adequate experience of the conditions in the real world that really apply to him. The psychopath essentially doesn’t know what the real world amounts to, but this is not to say that he is insulated from it. Ever see “Gone with the Wind?” Scarlett O’Hara is a psychopath. She emotionally reacts to events all the time, sometimes quite humorously. But in the end, we see that despite her many schemes she never really knew what she was doing, she never truly understood the forces that were acting on her, and so she loses everything.
4. “Ok, now, let’s add one more point to my fundamental premises (or, in your terms, my “epistemological centre”.
3) Jack has impotency problems.
I can do that, so long as my story remains consistent when I make this assumption. I don't need no stinking proof! The proof is in my story and how it all fits together; the A?R approach.”
>>No, no, God no Mr. Hamm. You’ve now thrown your whole paradigm out the window and begun cartooning. First of all, if you want to claim something very specific like JtR had impotency problems or a hangnail on his left index finger, then you’ve got to cash that out empirically somehow. You’ve got to have a credible letter written to “the Boss,” for example, in which he says he tried to copulate with Annie Chapman but couldn’t “get it up.” There is absolutely nothing in the empirical evidence of the Whitechapel murders to indicate that JtR had impotency problems, whereas the general idea that he was a psychopath, my “E.C.,” is abundantly in evidence. Neither is there anything about impotence that would qualify it as a reasonable cause of the case evidence, as there is about psychopathy. I’m not saying he didn’t have impotence or a hangnail, mind you, I’m saying WE DON’T KNOW whether or not he did. You violate the most basic rule A?R submits to concerning the empirical evidence above: If you are going to assume something, you have to 1) Have a critically estimable reason for doing so, and 2) Prove the assumption was correct by holistic analysis of the empirical evidence. Thus your paradigm is not reasonable. *** Second, it is much more than a matter of “the story remaining consistent” with the assumption as you say. The assumption has to BE ABOUT THE WHOLE OF THE EVIDENCE, or else it doesn’t work. Impotency does not in itself cause sexual serial murder; various other things do, including psychopathy, that’s one reason why I chose it as my E.C. Impotency cannot be a “fundamental premise” here. Impotency may have been a PART of the reason for the Whitechapel murders, I’ll grant you that. But here again, you are reveling in your parts like a good empiricist; you have no chance to see the whole from such a “perspective.”
5. “Now, Jack comes across Polly Nichols. Turns out, he can’t perform. She makes some comment along the lines of “Hurry up”, or she laughs, or he just gets frustrated. This situation brings out characteristic response mode 2, he gets angry and blames her. Perhaps he’s also been under a lot of pressure at work, or his wife has been annoying, or any number of other life stresses are going on. He’s feeling “picked on” by the world, and now this humiliation from someone he feels superior to. In his anger, he attacks and strangles her. He has a knife (obviously), but his anger isn’t sated, so he cuts her throat. Because it’s an impotency problem, he targets her midriff as well (blaming her for his lack of performance).”
>>Perhaps a psychopath who had the characteristics of a sexual serial murderer latent in him might get started on his series of murders upon being slighted by a prostitute in this way. Your premise is reasonable taken in itself.
6. “Either he leaves, or he spots the fellows coming down the road. Either way, he leaves without being spotted in the dark. He has enough time to regain his composure, so if he does see a cop, he no longer panics. Although the normal response after having just killed someone might be to panic, but with the psychopath, external events, or stimuli like our hypothetical cop, don’t evoke that emotional response. Hence, he can just stroll by, keep his hands in his pockets, look casual, etc, and none are the wiser.”
>>Nothing to complain about here as far as it goes, really.
7. “Strangely enough, he finds this whole event rather arousing. He may even have overcome his impotency during the attack, or when he got home. The attack, for whatever reason, was satisfying to him. Perhaps he even was able to justify it to himself, the world has so wronged him that she deserved it somehow. His “enjoyment”, I think, is something we could infer based upon the fact the murders continue. Again, his attack on Annie Chapman may have been partly prompted for similar reasons. If Mrs. Long’s statements are accurate, the “Will you?” question does sound like some sort of negotiation is going on, and in the context of the situation, that negotiation is probably of a sexual nature. And again, if he’s unable to perform, he again attacks her. His lack of concern of the time, and of being in an enclosed backyard, demonstrates his lack of emotional response to the external cues that might indicate this isn’t a great time and/or place for murder. Once he starts killing her, he also takes with him a trophy (another indication that the murders are enjoyable to him, and now he’s taking things to help re-live the moment; also suggests he lives alone for the obvious reason of how do you explain bringing home a uterus?) Again, an over-reaction either because he was again impotent, or because now he’s changing. Now murder is more interesting to him than sex.”
>>Well, you’ve given accounts of these two murders that are not implausible, but neither do they explain much about why the murders happened, either. You merely assume they happened because he’s an impotent psychopath. Assumption is not knowledge, you have to have a reason for why you assume what you assume, and then you must establish such an order of ideas, based on the evidence, as to functionally eliminate the effect of having made the assumption in the first place as a complete thought. I don’t see where you do this anywhere.
8. “Again, once he leaves, he doesn’t look suspicious because he doesn’t respond emotionally as a normal person would. He doesn’t look nervous, he’s able to keep his bloody hands out of sight somehow (in his pockets), etc. And, so, if he’s not looking nervous, there’s no reason for anyone to notice him until the body is found. And by which time, he’s long gone. Out of sight, out of mind. Night of the double event? If we include Stride, ok, he kills her and flees. The most probable explanation for him to flee is the cart, but there are others.”
>>Stop right there, Mr. Hamm. A?R has a specific and detailed explanation for the lack of mutilations on Stride, and there are NO other ways to specifically explain the lack of mutilations. You are falling on your face here. JtR was a mutilator, and if you want to say you’ve solved the case you’ve got to say exactly why he didn’t mutilate Stride, you can’t talk about maybes like the pony cart. You can talk pony cart if you merely want to review the case evidence without offering a comprehensive resolution, or you can talk pony cart if you had a witness who said he SAW the murderer get scared and run off when it arrived, but you can’t otherwise talk pony cart if you claim comprehensive resolution, because the evidence concerning the pony cart isn’t conclusive on its own. Maybe Diemschutz scared him, maybe not. You now have a BIG HOLE in your theory and are DEAD. And you also conveniently forget the cachous, which A?R explains and which are inexplicable otherwise. If you want to make a real solution of the Whitechapel murders, then you have to explain why everything happened, absent specific empirical data on exactly whodunit.
9. “Based upon the description of the time line of the blood clotting, the cart interruption seems to fit pretty well actually (I’ve posted on other threads about this). Now, killing Stride after being spotted (I’m assuming she’s killed by the man seen assaulting her, so this is our “Jack”), would require that he’s banking on not being recognised by Schwartz or “pipe man”. Perhaps, but I suppose he has to weigh that against being identified by Stride herself since he’s already attacked her. Taking a gamble, he kills Stride, gets interrupted and flees. Also, if we go with Schwartz’s description, it appears he’s a bit intoxicated as well. So, his judgement may be worse than before, and his enjoyment of the murders, and perhaps all the fuss he’s creating as well, got the better of him and he’s started to believe his own press. Hence, he attacks her in the street, rather than wait to get her to some more secluded area. Of course, if Stride is not a Ripper victim, things get easier since we can just ignore this murder.”
>>You can’t say Stride both was and was not a Ripper victim! You can’t have it both ways! Law of non-contradiction! And why did JtR just so happen to walk down otherwise deserted Berner Street right in front of Schwartz? DING! DING! What about the Leather Apron affair? Why does JtR behave like Leather Apron just after Pizer’s exoneration? *** The purpose of Ripperology critically should be to analyze all the case evidence, to pose such questions as to enliven the mind with respect to the subject under study. By ignoring the many issues above, you take a pass on this. Thus you don’t use enough issues in your solution. The mind is not enlivened enough to form itself around the best solution, and we can wind up with a plethora of poor solutions instead, and one of these is your solution.
10. “So, either he’s now fled and bumps into Eddowes, or Strides not a Ripper victim. Since his emotions are muted to normal events, by now he’s no longer showing any outward excitation or nervousness from having just killed Stride (if, of course he did). He’s spotted by three people, but has no reason to suspect they would take notice of two people; and they didn’t really. They all indicate they couldn’t identify the man, and only identified Eddowes by her clothes. Much like Ted Bundy didn’t care about the women he approached at Lake Sammish (sp?), but failed to induce into his car. Why would they remember him well enough to describe him? It’s just another random event in the day, more or less normal, until later you hear about the murder. By that time, you might remember you saw someone, but not the details necessary to provide a good description. Ted Bundy even gave people his real name, and he’s supposed to be a smart one.”
>>What is all this ongoing baloney talk about “emotions muted to normal events?” Not being able to adequately appreciate the experience of life is one thing, but you describe the murderer as functioning on an almost robotoid-level of stony denial. If this guy just doesn’t care about anything, then why is he even doing these things? I mean, if he didn’t get some kind of a kick from killing people, then why did he bother? You have to describe him faithfully as pathological, Mr. Hamm, and you have to have a real pathology to go on, such as a tangential antisocial self-projection as I describe, hard by the evidence. The guy was, I think, a prankster. “Emotions muted to normal events” is ridiculous—it sounds like the programming in a cheap electronic toy you’d buy for some kid you didn’t like for Christmas. It has no real connection to either psychopathy or the case evidence. Psychopathy features an across-the-boards emotional blunting to ALL events, including extreme events. *** Why did two exposures to Jewish witnesses at Jewish facilities take place before the double event murders, but not otherwise?
11. “Anyway, so after these 3 guys go passed, he goes with Eddowes into the square. By now, he’s more interested in killing than sex.”
>>Why?
12. “Kills her immediately, and gets out of there. Again, while leaving, he’s able to appear non-suspicious and so nobody pays any attention to him. His reduced emotional response to what would normally induce nervousness and fear, are what get him out of the area. He tosses the apron, may or may not have written the “Juwes” message, and heads into a well crowded area; possibly to his home, where he can wash up.”
>>You are now blowing massive amounts of evidence away as if it didn’t exist! You explain little or nothing. How are you going to be able to tell us whom JtR was based on this little bit about him basically just walking around? All you want to do is tell a story, any old story, even a truncated story, and you don’t even care to be truthful or faithful to the case evidence about it. You’ve got him walking through doors, tossing the apron, washing up, maybe doing this or that and maybe not, and that’s about it. What does this do for you? How is it a reasonable account of what happened? How does it tell us about the part of the case we don’t see based on the part we do? It is mind-bogglingly hermeneutically inadequate and useless. Why did he do these things? What was his plan? Why did he make those marks on Eddowes’ face? Why the graffitus? “May or may not” concerning the graffitus is unacceptable if you want to wind up with a case solution that means anything—you must explain why or why not. Why did Levy make absurd comments to Harris just before? And so on, many more unanswered questions apply here, I could go on for an hour asking them; in fact I did in my Summary. *** I believe what you are basically out to prove in this post is that nobody can solve the Whitechapel murders but by empiricism. All accounts of the evidence that aren’t 100% empirically based amount to nothing. So you write a rationalistic account that amounts to nothing, and by that you figure you’ve proved your point. But that doesn’t mean A?R amounts to nothing.
13. “As for Kelly, she’s prettier and younger. He may simply have enjoyed her services.”
>>”May” is inoperative as an explanation of the case evidence. What would have happened, and why?
14. “His impotency problems are gone because he can fuel his arousal through his memories. However, perhaps at some point she rebukes him (she wants to sleep, or she kicks him out, something) and so he then attacks and kills her as well. Now, he indulges himself because there’s no need to get out of the area quickly. He finally finishes, cleans up with some of the clothes in the room, burns them on the fire, gets dressed, closes the door which locks behind him, and wanders off looking as if he has no cares in the world. A normal event that nobody takes any notice of.”
>>But people had been taking unprecedented, worldwide notice of his previous crimes! Why should he think this one would be any different? It doesn’t make sense. This is a rationalization, a means of turning the meaningfulness of the case evidence into meaninglessness. In meaninglessness, you find a place where no significant questions concerning the evidence can be asked, and you’re happy. You’ve narcotized your brain. But A?R wants to ask questions, it remains alert to the possibilities and oppositions of the case evidence.
15. “Now, such story fits more or less with the characteristics of a psychopath. Emotional responses are muted in response to the external events, but when he’s the target of some “injustice” or whatever, he goes over the top. Once he leaves a murder scene, it’s that muted emotional response that allows him to go “unnoticed”, and the same allows him to appear non-suspicious to his victims. It’s the “over the top” reaction which produces the murders. The impotency is simply a factor that provides the reason for the “over the top” reaction; it’s what he gets “angry” about – some sort of interaction between him and at least the earliest victim, has to do with a failure to perform. It also explains why the target of the mutilations are the abdomen and genital area. It also explains why he might have continued after being spotted by Lawende and company; it’s such a normal thing to see a man and women in that area he has no reason to believe he will be remembered. If Levey knew him, he would realise this (he’s not delusional), so I see no reason to believe Levey, or any of the others, know our hypothetical Jack.”
>>This may be a plausible story on a simple level, but it is so simple it doesn’t enliven the mind. The whole can only be formed by an enlivened mind. *** You don’t justify your assumption of impotence anywhere. After you tell your tale, there is no more reason to believe JtR was an impotent man than there was before. Truly you have no idea how questions in the humanities are approached. You fit in well with the other members of the mediocre trio, who are basically interested in consuming products geared to Ripperology, instead of learning how to think for themselves.
16. “The extent of the mutilations simply reflect the fact that he enjoys the mutilations. There’s no message in them, other than “I like doing this. It gets me off!””
>>Under this thinking, there is nothing to constrain how he mutilates. But he repetitively mutilates the same way in different cases! He’s got an M.O. on mutilations, he goes after the wombs of maternal women! Neither would there be any reason behind the mutilation symbols carved into Eddowes’ face. But those symbols were both discrete as to their various forms and diverse! They meant something! You make HUGE assumptions here with NO documentation to back yourself up! Everything you do is typical of a college sophomore.
17. “Now, is this a “solution”? No. It’s a story, one of many, that simply could explain the murders.”
>>You have explained NOTHING, Mr. Hamm. All you’ve done is FLAP YOUR LIPS naively on this thread for the umpteenth time. You’ve loaded your laundry, soiled yourself, and embarrassed yourself again.
18. “It leaves us with no suspect, and it starts from an unverified premise, that Jack was actually psychopathic and impotent; or at least impotent with Polly Nichols.”
>>Your assignment, what I asked you to do, was to develop an alternative to A?R that SOLVES THE CASE and VERIFIES its own premise(s)! I can do that in A?R, you CAN’T do that here! I narrow my suspects down to a very few people, a relative or close familiar of Aaron Kosminski, most likely either Morris Lubnowski or Woolf Abrahams, and if neither them, then Isaacs Kosminski or another close associate—you have NO SUSPECT AT ALL! And you do NOT find corroboration anywhere to verify your premise that JtR was impotent! You FAILED in your assignment! You were supposed to be able to prove that A?R was not the solution in that a different solution AS GOOD AS A?R could be given using the same case evidence! So, in failing to do so, you have NOT disproved A?R!
19. “Yes, a psychopath could commit the murders, yes if he had impotency problems it might provoke a violent response. But a schizophrenic could have committed these murders, or a very angry and violent fellow who was not psychopathic. Etc. Being able to tell a consistent story does not prove the unverified premises are true.”
>>You haven’t solved the case for a psychopath with impotency—you make no whole out of the parts with this methodology. Perhaps a schizophrenic could have committed these murders, but by no means could a violent person absent a grave psychiatric deficit. This was not merely “violence,” this was pathology. You tell a consistent story, but A?R does much more with the evidence of the Whitechapel murders—it raises it to the level of epistemology.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:36 pm: | |
Hi David,
Bullwinkle'd be proud of you at turning in a grammatical circle in less than a paragraph, but an exceedingly long paragraph...
You ramble on about tying a Mickey Finn (huh?) and how you just can't possibly learn it from the static pictures in the books and how it's all about experience gained in the field doing it, and then inform Jeff:
To Quote:
"It is a complex deficiency involving a peculiar mis-development of a multitude of personal factors and attributes; we talking about the human identity structure. You need to spend many hours with psychiatric textbooks to get a sense of the problem, you can’t rely on commonsense heuristic guesswork."
I'm sure I know what you mean, but perhaps you can (just for the benefit of some of us less able thinkers) explain why you can't learn how to tie a fly based on a book yet you can understand and learn in-depth complex psychology issues from... err... static text in psychology books?
Is it something to do with the number of books you read, and so if you had read more books on tying a fly you'd actually have become an expert and have to do no field work at all?
How many is that number which makes one an expert without having any field experience?
Perhaps ole Jacky's tailoring marks were the result of him only having the one tailoring book and that was the reason the markings were really sh*te?
Perhaps I'm having one of those "thickie" moments today.
Cheerio,
ian -- keeping one eye closed and the other one open
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
Mr. Hamm wrote:
1. “Oh, And for the schizophrenic version of the above story, let's change our premises: If I were to look at say, paranoid schizophrenia, I would find the following characteristics:
1) schizophrenia is often characterised by "flat affect" (reduced emotional expression)
2) schizophrenia can include volitile and unexpected emotional outbursts
3) schizophrenia often includes hearing voices, and when violent, the voices are often commands to commit the violence
Ok, now, change the impotency reference for our psychopath above, to his voices telling him to "kill prostitutes" (or whatever command you feel is more appropriate: I.e., your brother is a doctor, why can't you operate like he can? You're useless, prove you can operate as well as he can. Etc. We can be as creative as we like, just keep the story consistent to the points).”
>>No, Mr. Hamm, we can’t be "as creative as we like," and we are not telling a story. We are analyzing the evidence, and are strictly limited by it. We are here only to explain the evidence fully in a logical manner, and to do nothing more. Each step in our hermeneutical work is the analysis of a logical opposition found in the evidence. Our work proceeds in strict keeping with the chronology of the evidence. What you are proposing to do above makes a travesty of the methodology of A?R. *** What is your reason for selecting paranoid schizophrenia as the center of the case? What is there about the evidence that tells you this is the BEST center? You need to make a cogent statement in this regard. *** In assuming that JtR was a schizophrenic whose voices told him to kill prostitutes, you are setting yourself up to be required to justify this assumption. But what is there about the evidence that enables this? The man was never apprehended, he didn’t say voices were ordering him to kill prostitutes to a police interrogator. On the other hand, when we posit psychopathy as the center, the whole of the case evidence reduces to it. You bastardize my method. *** Whose "brother" are you referring to? You can't say "brother" and not say who the brother is. Where is your suspect list, also? You are doing nothing but guessing--the case evidence means nothing to you.
2. “Again, I now have a character who now has the traits I need. When I need him to be "calm, and emotionally flat", I point to premise 1. When I need him to be capable of violence, I point to premise 2. And, when asked why he does any of this? I point to premise 3.”
>>Go ahead and point, but you then need to justify. You have made three complex assumptions of JtR, and you now have to prove all three applied to him, hard by the evidence. You do not even attempt to do so below.
3. “3. “When asked why the murders stop, he's
a) gone into remission (it was a single episode)
b) he's gotten worse, and finally is put away as a lunatic
c) he's hit by a train
etc.
Whatever gets rid of him is "proved" by how my story is consistent with the facts (which, fortunately, I have the pleasure of picking for myself; the ones that don't fit I can say "Not Genuine"). You know, based on how easy this A?R is to prove who the ripper was, I think there are more Jacks than Jack's victims!”
>>You soil yourself by your incoherence. An epistemological center is supposed to enable you to concentrate on a set of possibilities or styles of questioning and interpretation, but you are make a joke of all this. No further comment is required concerning this dreck.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
Ms Pegg wrote:
1. “…And David think before you say things.”
>>My postings to this thread are the well-considered reflections of the solver of the Whitechapel murders.
2. “Feel free to introduce as many new suspects to the case as you like, just realise that some kind of evidence to back up a suspect is always a good way to gain support.”
>>Did Leonardo da Vinci need to “gain support?” Nietzsche published “Zarathustra” privately, 100 copies, and it is one of the most influential works of nineteenth century philosophy. Wittgenstein’s famous Blue and Brown books were lecture notes taken by his students. I think you need to “gain something” yourself, Ms Pegg, and it is an appreciation of the mind involved.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2347
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
We are not talking about pieces of art, philosophy or fiction here, Radka. We are debating an actual murder case. Learn the difference -- you are messing things up as usual.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hi David!!!!
it so pleasant of you to address me directly in your usual well thought out and polite manner.
I refer you to my earlier point.
If you do not want to gain support for your theory but just want to leave it as what you think on the main site, no one would be more pleased for you to do that than me.
Oh yeah and i remember what i was thinking when i posted that first quote (may i add an age ago now) and as usual it had nothing to do with your suspect or theory but more to do with your attitude and rudeness.
David,
Leonardo da Vinci was possibly one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, but if he wanted people to believe what he said was his word good enough?
David,
why do you write gain something in quotation marks? "was there" a point to this or was it toatally "random"? and whatever this thing you think it is i need to "gain" is only makes sense because in your "world you are" comparable to Leonardo da Vinci now - or maybe i "missed something?" (because I am after all obtuesly inadequate let us not forget this!)
Jenni
ps Hi there Glenn, |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
BTW
My postings to this thread are the well-considered reflections of the solver of the Whitechapel murders.
who is this person you have been talking with david, perhaps you should tell me so that I can "gain something" |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2348
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
Hi there, Jenni.
All the best
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 383
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 9:06 pm: | |
David,
I think we already do appreciate "the mind involved"... as an egomaniac without anything to back up your claims of intellectual superiority.
The people you compare yourself to were hailed as geniuses because they were. The reason you aren't recognized as one is because you actually haven't demonstrated basic competency in, well, anything so far, except perhaps for verbose braggadocio.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Hi David,
Sorry, but curiosity has gotten the better of me regarding your reply to Ms Pegg (aka Jennifer).
To Quote:
Ms Pegg wrote:
1. “…And David think before you say things.”
>>My postings to this thread are the well-considered reflections of the solver of the Whitechapel murders.
Why exactly would Patricia Cornwell want to write to you?
Cheerio,
ian -- Keeping one eye open and the other one closed
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
Hi David,
Nice riposte to Jeff on his oh so pathetic alternative story.
Ha, his story has more holes than substance not at all like yours David where I find no holes at all.
Your summary David, on the other hand, is as solid as a piece of Swiss cheese which has been put in a vise and compressed to 12.6% of it's original volume by one of those Swiss farm girls wearing one of those wooden yolk things whilst singing "The Hills Are Alive With The Sound Of Music".
I say a desparaging -ha- to you Jeff, you don't explain where the tailoring marks came from or why, or anything about the whistling kettle, or the identification at Hove, or Tabram's murder by JtR, or the Lusk letter demanding a bigger reward, or why he wrote the word jugenwerk in the grafitto...
Jeff, you seem to miss all this case evidence in your sorry tale, I bet you feel all embarassed now especially since David pointed out you pooped in your pants.
My pants on the other hand are protected by section 30 of David's summary - oh my lovely Radka Summary suit, it seems to have special anti-poop properties, you should get one.
Cheerio,
ian -- Keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 350
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:37 am: | |
All -
This is a fairly long post so I apologize up front to those that don't like long reads
The gist is that David is wrong in making accusations against me with little evidence and concordantly (given his previous and now documented methods) he most certainly must be wrong in other areas as well, i.e. in his summary and theory. I've grown tired enough of his insults being tossed at me that I've finally wrote a response.
Spry -
Hope all is well. I've read and re-read this a few times and given the things that have been posted in this thread and others, I feel it conforms to the rules. If, however, it does not. Please let me know so that I may edit it. There are a few points that I feel need to made and I would hate to have it removed for something I could fix rather quickly
*Sigh*
Let us begin.
"Mr. Mullins wrote:
1. “Has the gravity of your situation began to sink in a little deeper now David? Have you noticed how no one is really responding to you? How all that ego inflating attention is beginning to wane?…we're all just so fed up with your BS that there is no reason to respond to you. If you weren't such a nuclear attention whore, perhaps you would have picked up on this by now.”
>>Please state precisely, point for point, what you think “my BS” is. I will respond to clear up any misunderstandings. If you can’t say, then don’t claim there is “BS” when there is none."
Way to attempt to misquote me, bubbles. You also didn't answer my questions. Then again, that is no surprise. I think this is a great time to mention that I am tired of playing with you and your unregistered, non-contributing self. Regardless of your response to this post, know that I have "0wn3d j00". You're mine now. Regardless of what drivel you slap up here next time, know that I could and might come in and show you horribly incorrect.
Now.. let's see. Where were we? Ahh yes. Not to quick on the uptake, are you? I have pointed out your BS. Not only did you ignore those posts, you are now trying to use the fact that you ignored or forgot them against me? Please. You are making this too easy. Learn how to properly flame on the internet or in the words of one greater than I; "I'm going to have to ask you to leave the internet.. you're just to damn stupid".
Since we are playing daft, here is a very brief rundown of your "BS". Your seeming inability to make a post with out insults; This is verifiable by almost all of your posts. The one I am replying to included. Your seeming inability to face hard, cold facts; This is verifiable by some of your posts as well. Specifically the ones where a particular word was involved. Your Seeming inability to admit defeat or wrong doing; This will be apparent when you read this post, particularly the part about me being involved in some sort of F'in conspiracy. We all know you will not apologize for attempting to sully my name, as well as others, in some sort of cooked up conspiracy involving carrots and magazines. Thus, you will not admit defeat or wrong doing. Your.. well your general attitude towards almost everyone here at the casebook and specifically on this thread. Like I typed before. Don't treat us as if we have an intellect rivaled only by garden tools. The list could go on forever. I can not and will not continue to sit here and argue, point by point, what I think is poor behavior and general misconduct on your part. Unlike you, I don't have that kind of time. You know what you have done and if you really are unaware, then perhaps it's time you go back to school or get out in the real world and socialize. Re-teach yourself etiquette. Besides, being unregistered puts you in the precarious position of being edited by the Administrator. Why just a few days ago he had to delete a post from you with very personal and vicious information about Howard. Perhaps this is proof positive that you might need to be kept on a short leash, lest you get yourself in serious trouble? I don't know. Make of it what you wish.
"2. “As for why I am required to respond to you. Allow me to fill you in so that you can see just how silly your line of thinking about me and Dan being in cahoots really is. I am required to respond to you because I require myself to.”
>>Nobody can require himself or herself to do anything. You contradict yourself. What are the terms of your employment? Don’t you think it is only fair to the readers of this thread to inform them what your bias may be? You don’t want to be another Stewart Evans, do you?"
Just because you can't directly address the statement (as it is obviously over your head) I made doesn't mean that you have to change topics and insult Stewart Evans. Frankly, I could give two left testes as to what people think of me. You are the one who seems to have the self esteem issues. Your "readership", etc. Count me out of the cult, thank you very much.
Since you choose to pick parts of my reply and treat them as little islands of sound bytes instead of one large coherent message that has a point, the above has been mis-quoted or at the very least could be taken out of context. I think you will find that since you choose to quote/read out of context, you have probably missed the entire point of my message. Once again. This doesn't bother me nearly as much as it does you, but I just thought I would bring it up once again because you always claim people are doing this sort of thing you. Remember: The world is out to get you.
At any rate your statement that no one can require themselves to do anything is an incorrect one. One word: Discipline. Look it up. While you are busy doing that, allow me to use it in a sentence for you: "I've got discipline baby and I use it a lot". Surprisingly it seems the popular paraphrased definition is "someone who requires an action of themselves or others". Kinda goes against that statement you just made, doesn't it? Shhh. I won't tell if you won't.
Seriously David. How you could even conceive a statement like that let alone post it. Have you never heard of brushing your teeth, eating your veggies, taking out the trash, etc? People (all of us, that means you too) require ourselves to do things every day. Whether you like to admit it or not. Don't argue back semantics either. The above was obviously a very broad example.
I told you why I require myself to respond to you. That was in the next part of my post. Apparently not being able to comprehend sentence structure, you inadvertently choose to respond to my answer as your next statement/question. My post wasn't intended to be butchered up into small, non-linear points. It's a whole message and not little pieces of one. You'll notice I didn't use bullets or sub-heads. This is usually a tip off to people who read that the entire message should be considered and not just a few random sentences plucked gleefully out of said message by someone with a vendetta. Remember that next time you feel inclined to "respond" to me.
Here's a brief rundown of my answer again for you: I respond to you because _I_ make myself respond to you because _I_ feel that you are almost 100% incorrect in many of the things you choose to type here. By implication that means that you could very well possibly be incorrect in many other areas as well. See below where I 0wn j00 RE: My job as an editor. There is no shame in being incorrect David. Unless of course you aren't man enough own upto it. Ask around. Us humans are fallible and we will irrevocably make mistakes. This should be abundantly clear to someone with an intelligence quotient over 155. It's not the act of a mistake that really counts. It's the actions afterwards that are tallied up.
Thus observing you try, in vain, to defend a position that is in my opinion at it's very base a fallacy is fun to watch, to say the least. It has been said that you are your own worst enemy. Perhaps that is the truth.
You've been around on these boards for some time. During a portion of your time spent here you have been beating on your drum of "I have the answer!!"; thoroughly and with great vigor. Now as someone once adequately put it the time comes time to put up or shut up. You most certainly put up something alright but you you seemed to have forgotten the other part. Defending it or shutting up. So far all I have seen you capable of doing is tossing insults and responding to months old posts like they are brand new when in fact they are so old they've moved way past moot. Try as you might, this sort of behavior will never be considered a defense.
You have not been able to successfully defend most of your arguments against people like me because we are not part of the unwashed masses (being incorrect in your base hasn't helped you much either) We've read a book or two, had lots of experience; Hell, we might even be smarter than you are. Despite your ego you are not our species shinning example of "most intelligent homo sapien that ever lived".
"3. “I believe I know volumes more about your chosen subject of sociopathy (or pyschopathy to you) than you do. You claim to be this breadth of knowledge, yet when pressed you either refuse to respond or can't seem to get your ideas straight.”
>>Rubbish. I’ve been responding fully, straight out of psychopathic texts, since Day One, April 26th. Please state precisely, point for point, what you think I haven’t answered, and I will answer it. And also state specifically what “volumes” you use concerning psychopaths, as I have."
Uhmmmm.. No you haven't. Let's not lie here. Let's call a spade a spade. If anything you've poorly played mind games in the hopes that others would yield before you did. You never admit yielding mind you; you just put your hands over your ears whilst repeating "I'm not listening" really loudly. Just like Gollum. Your problem with me is that I haven't really asked you specific things about your theory and since it is well documented that you don't like me very much, you've ignored me. I was saving the questions about your theory and summary until after I had established some of your credentials. I never had a chance to get that far. I asked you about your background in diagnosing "psychopathy". This, if memory serves, enraged you to the point of name calling. Magic Eight Ball say's it is because you fear them as some sort of attack or attempt to discredit you. Perhaps you should have re-read the post to see that this wasn't my intention at all. If you don't wish people to ask you questions you feel are inappropriate then perhaps you shouldn't come forward and proclaim yourself (in attitude at least) as our latest forward thinking savior. I've typed it once and I'll type it again. The search button is your friend. I've asked the questions. You know how to use the search button as proven by your ability to respond to my month old statement. Find them yourself. The onus is upon you, not me, to find them. You made the claim; I asked the questions. Don't pretend it's the other way around. The ball is in your court now, sparky.
Also either you can't read or you are going out of your way to try and steer this little conversation of ours another direction. Based on your question about my sources, you sound as if you misread my original statement.
I said I believe I know volumes more about..... Not that I use volumes more...
Go ahead. Go back and re-read it. With that hopefully cleared up: The "volumes" I typed about in this particular context would be experience. Common sense plays a part, but that might considered a cheap shot at you. So, we'll go with experience for the sake of conversation. Try as you might, you can't prove me wrong on my experiences. They are mine and mine alone. You can't claim "but you didn't do that!" or "that didn't happen!!" because hey whatta know, you weren't right there with me experiencing what I was experiencing. Even if you were; Your perception of things and mine would vary greatly. Being two separate people with two separate points of view, points of reference, etc. Of course if I ever claimed anything that would be impossible or sound silly I would expect to be called on it. Kinda like I'm calling you out. Since I don't really claim that much and when I do it's based on things that happen here in the real world where the sky is blue, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Arguing against my personal experiences would be monumental folly in my opinion. Let's see if you try.
"4. “In the interest of new members and old alike, I decided that I just can't sit back and let you spout off at the mouth, unchallenged. I'm not certain why you had to come up with a conspiracy theory based on a little sentence I wrote.. but cha did. You took one statement I made and turned it into 3 (I believe) posts on some conspiracy.. One that doesn't exist (save inside your own head) might I add. Just sit back for a moment and IMAGINE what you have done with your theory and summary, in this regard.”
>>You wrote you wouldn’t post to this thread if you weren’t required to do so. That implies someone is doing the requiring, and you are doing the complying. Please answer the question: Who are you working for?"
Actually that's not exactly what I wrote.. But hey, why let the facts get in the way
It would also appear that you tried to change the subject of my original text by quoting it, then responding with an answer that you hope will elicit a response that will in turn change the subject. But hey, who's paying attention. Not you apparently. This quote too was part of my answer as to why I require myself to respond to you. Break it down into little parts like you did, however and it doesn't seem to make much sense. So either you missed it by mistake or ignored it on purpose. Tell me honestly, which was it?
I wish you didn't force me to do this. It's for your own good, really. It's going to hurt me worse than it is you.
We finally come to it. "It?" you say. Yes, it. The part where I prove your methods poor and your philosophy flawed by proxy. I didn't respond to this particular line of inquiry earlier (in your #2) because I saw this little gem here. I figured I would save my response for here.
Think back, heir Radka. If you'll remember, many moons ago Mephisto and I got into a little tiff. I decided it best to attempt to look past our disagreements and make peace. If only for the sake of intelligent dialog. A successful attempt, might I add. Now in the course of making peace I decided to give a little bit of personal information out about my then current employment. After giving it some thought I decided to word it just like this: "Hi, I'm Jason. I'm a retired computer programmer and unix system administrator who now passes his time as an editor for internal publications at the worlds largest company (at least they tout themselves as such ) And you are?"
Those words were chosen carefully so as to be ambiguous. I only needed to read your summary once to realize that you were what most people would label as "conspiracy theorist". Not me so much, but many people I spoke to. It was the way in which you wrote it coupled with your erratic and odd behavior in attempts to defend your work that really seemed tipped most off in the direction of "conspiracy theorist".
When I said I was an editor of internal publications I was being truthful. However, it's not what most would label "editor" in the real world. I don't meet with real authors or publish real books. It's a title I was given because of corporate america. What I truly do for a living is check people's spelling, grammar, etc so that when it leaves our little department it "looks" good. It's a very small part of what I do. I only do it because I'm rather good at it and the department was short staffed. Most of what I do is still computer related. As a matter of fact, I rarely "edit" anything any more. David, however, didn't really think to ask anymore about me and what I do. Based on his previous track record I think I can say that he loves assumption. Why find out the facts when you can fill in what you don't know with something you made up?
David put it together than I am somehow in cahoots with all sorts of ripper editors and authors or that I perhaps somehow aspire to become a budding ripper author myself. Why would he do that? Doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Let's see if I can follow this logic. I say I'm an editor. I agree with Dan on a great many things. I disagree with David on a great many things. Ergo I must be in league with Dan? YES! That's it!!
STOP the presses. THIS IS NEWS!
Pray tell, what proof do you have?
None you say?
Oh well, go ahead and post it anyway. It's not likely you'll be wrong. Remember, your IQ is well over 155!
You're damn lucky I'm not the vindictive type David. For the record, nothing could be further from the truth. David took a few words and read so far between the lines that he was reading the other side of the page. Since he did this based on what little evidence he had presented to him (a single post I made on this message board) that should make him not only un-thorough but rather un-ethical as well. That's cool and all, but don't pretend to be anything else. Don't act as if your research is flawless and your methods the most sublime. That, you see, would be a fallacy.
So you want an answer for who I am working for David? Here it is: No one. Not only did you take the evidence of my employment and skew it so far out of view so as to attempt to make me look bad, you did it with no proof and a grudge. WAY. TO. GO!!
WINNAR!!
You must have entertained the possibility that I LIED to Mephisto about a great many things. Didn't you? Well I didn't of course; However that is beside the point that you didn't do your homework; You just spouted off some half ass theory about me and who "I'm working for".
Now if you are capable of this sort of gross error and misconduct in regards to something that really doesn't matter to this case just sit back and wonder _massive_ leaps in logical error (or in general for that matter) you have made with the anything in regards to the JTR case. Personally, I wouldn't trust you with anything other than counting up to 3. Let alone with something as complex a thing as a murder.
"5. “As I'm sure you are aware, I have at least 2 confirmed sociopath's in my family. This places me in a rather interesting position of observation. A position that you have likely not been in before. I've already given you reasons why I'm almost positive that you are off by a long shot in your summary and your views on what a real "psychopath" is like or is inclined to do, So I won't repeat myself here. If you do not remember them, I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with the search button at the top right of this very page you are reading now. Just know that I know you are ill informed and have no problem calling you out on it.”
>>This is the typical baloney resorted to by Dan Norder on this thread for months. Just claim you answered the question before, and you never have to answer it at all. It is a dirty, immature con game, a strategy suitable only to people who don’t care what they do. Who are you working for?"
Uh... Isn't that what you have been doing for the better part of a year? Pretending to have answered questions that you haven't? Surely it is. I know because you have done it to me! Don't believe me? Must I _really_ go back into the archive and hot link examples of you directly avoiding legitimate questions by myself and other posters? Are you going to sit there at your computer and write back that you have _not_ done this? Please do
Oh Please... I double dog dare you!!
And just for the record;
No Special K, it isn't baloney. It is the truth. I know, I know... You're allergic. Still, I told you to use the search because if you had used it, you would have had some answers to your boggles or perhaps might have found the questions to which I was eluding to and that you pretend do not exist. This doesn't mean you will like the answers given or even the questions posed but I'm confident that you would have found them. I did and so can you. Just because you can not accept them doesn't make them incorrect or venomous. And unless it's fried, I'll ask you to keep your baloney to yourself. If you are fryin' it, however, I'll be first in line
If you accuse me of partaking in anything remotely likely to be labeled a "con game" or illegal again you and I will most certainly have to make like Emeril and "BAM!! Kick it up a notch". I've already let your childish accusations pertaining to my breaking federal laws lapse. Do not be so foolish as to believe that I will continue to be as lenient as I have in the past.
Legion
"Our name is legion, for we are many" |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Legion!!!!!
I couldn't have put it better myself. (though will you stop mentioning the gangstarism, David is never going to apologise for miligning us all - or perhaps he is - prove me wrong!)
i don't know why you are worried about breaking the posting rules - it's clear that David isn't!!
Jenni |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:01 am: | |
A tiresome boaster who states that the identity of the Ripper is a definitely ascertained fact. And, no, I don't mean Anderson. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Mr. Brown wrote:
1. "Just a quick look in...for the last time on any thread that Rocket J.Radka appears in primarily. Sweetheart..You should have been told that any prior assumed animosity that I harbored toward Stephen should be considered " water under the bridge".
>>If you say so.
2. "Was I wrong with any comments I made? I was. Was I really mad at Stephen ? No...just irritated because of the absolute contempt I have for your Internet personality and that he,Steve Ryder,would spend time on you."
>>Argumentum ad hominem. What does this have to do with the validity of the A?R theory, one way or the other?
3. "Thats his business what he does now and it was then...Have I personally been responsible for booting anyone that badmouthed this site, at another location? Yes. Was I mad at you for your panic stricken performance almost 2 years ago ? Take a wild guess,Nietzsche,Jr."
>>Keep in mind, these are two totally unrelated matters.
4. “In case you had an idea that I would avoid being held accountable[ no pun intended ] for anything I say,do,or may think, you are sadly mistaken. I am the first to admit when I am wrong on anything. Unlike you. Hell...even you know that.”
>>No, Mr. Brown. You can’t prove it by me that you are “the first to admit when you are wrong on anything.” You have never apologized to me.
5. “My few e-mails to you were from a long time ago...I don't really think about you much anymore. Thems the facts. So say,post,do whatever you want. I'm not going to augment your ridiculous sense of self worth anymore. Your possible attempt at outing me as a previously unhappy camper was from way back. [I also explained to Jason what the "chandala" reference was to]...That was then,this is now. ...and that,along with the fact that I get along with as many people here as anywhere else,should tell you something...and thems the facts....”
>>I hope indeed that these are the facts, and that this is goodbye, Mr. Brown.
P.S. This should be, I believe by the counter, post number 1,094.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
out of order:
AIP wrote:
"A tiresome boaster who states that the identity of the Ripper is a definitely ascertained fact."
>>No, AIP, I do not think the identity of the murderer is a definitely ascertained fact. I don't think it is a fact at all. Facts are empirical, and the only reason I write is because of the impossibility of gaining empirical evidence of the identity of the murderer at this point. I think, instead, that A?R presents a logically satisfying explanation of the crimes, and that it is the best solution possible given the empirical evidence we have.
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “As amusing as it is to see David personally insist that I have to come debate him on this thread over things we already went over dozens of times months ago (which he conveniently denies ever happened), there's no good reason to even bother.”
>>The “good reason” is your own word of honor, Mr. Norder. On Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:40 pm you posted:
“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 {referring to my annotated PCL-R and DSM-IV checklists that I had posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm, and on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:01 pm respectively.} 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.”
May we assume in all this time, over ten weeks, you’ve completed your work and are now prepared to specifically point out all these “errors and self-contradictions?” Remember, you stated that these two posts contained the following errors, which you would point out in them to us:
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.
Let’s go, Mr. Norder. Truth or consequences. Show us where these “errors and self-contradictions” appear in my two posts. We’re waiting. If you can’t find any of the above three items in those two posts, say as much, don’t back out.
2. “I could continue to point out his many and major errors, he'd continue to deny them, and then as the post count increased he'd pretend yet again that it means his theory is important enough to be worth more discussion than everything else on the boards combined.”
>>This is nothing more than a lame excuse for not admitting that you are, and for six months have been, monopolizing this thread with your distortions of my theory. Let’s go, Mr. Norder. Truth or consequences. Show us where these “errors and self-contradictions” appear in my two posts. We’re waiting. If you can’t find any of the above three items in those two posts, say as much, don’t back out.
3. “David, for crying out loud, just work on getting your book written and sent to publishers. Saying the same things over and over on the Casebook boards and pretending to be some super-genius in fields you have no training in doesn't do anything other than demonstrate why nobody should take you seriously.”
>>I do not claim to be a super-genius, but I do claim to have spent nearly a decade of my life studying the humanities in graduate school on a high level, including psychology. Certainly that is ample reason for me to be taken seriously in what I say about psychopathy and the case.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Hi Crix,
I think David is just extremely p*ssed off at the moment.
The "tiresome boaster" (spot on AIP) with the oh so high intellect, simply can't understand why we don't eat out of his hands and swallow his Summary and view of psychology hook-line-and-sinker.
He's so up-close-and-personal with his Summary/theory that he seems to have lost all rational reasoning (viz. conspiracy theory based on a one liner you wrote, calling posters here his "readership", the intent to diss Howard in that post and drag up events from long past(I also saw it before it was pulled by Spry), comparing himself to Loenardo da Vinci, Nietzsche et al, previously he's compared himself to Plato and Hegel, claiming it's an important thread based on the volume of messages where quantity more than quality counts).
I think, if anything, he is not revered here as the solver of the case but... well... in all honesty pitied as the sad little man he seems to be.
I understand he's spent 7 years on the summary and it must be a crushing blow that the "plebs" have the audacity to actually raise questions and criticise it.
No one but he is fighting his corner, he is alone, it's commendable that he is still fighting the fight, but nevertheless, it can't be doing him much good that he's so far convinced no-one and is just p*ssing against the wind.
Even Mephisto avoided commenting on the Summary itself, he strictly limited himself to the methodology and the psyhcopathy aspects as far as I remember; it would have been interesting to watch him debate the actual conclusions reached in the Summary.
David, laudable thought it may be to fight like a terrier in support of your theory, you surely must understand that your personal jibes and digs at posters reflects not only on you but on your summary also? Critics on the boards are rude, crude, stoopid, etc but everyone see your replies and what you say colours their opinion not only of you but of the Summary.
It's sad to say but even I have a hard time separating the message from the messenger and I suspect I'm no different from the rest of the crowd.
You may not like it and I can't understand how a simple cause/effect like this isn't and wasn't apparent to you and why (even though some of the attacks against you/the Summary were vicious at times) you didn't take the moral high ground for the sake of your Summary.
The Summary? It's a neat _story_ which covers _some_ of the case evidence, makes _HUGE_ logical jumps about marks on faces with no reasons _why_ anyone would ever think they were tailoring marks conveying a message to a butcher, _HUGE_ stretches of the imagination that the psychopath has THREE separate motives one after the other to help glue the story together, as you know I could go on, and you will deny it in your usual terrier like posting style, but, you should remember that a long, long, time ago there were probably some open minds on this thread and _you_ lost _your_ potential readership by _your_ outrageous, arrogant, boastful behaviour.
Do I await your answer? No. You won't convince me and you already "answered" those questions to _your_ satisfaction previously, unfortunately _I_ still have the questions.
The open minds moved on and only the dissenters are left.
I am a dissenter and I raised a few issues I had, but, I don't raise issues any more since there's no point really, I, like the rest, are probably those who read out of plain curiousity to see just how low this thread can sink.
Just like passing an accident on the motorway - you don't really want to look but you feel compelled.
Anyhoo, nice post Crix (or Legion, or Jason) and Hi's to Glenn and Jenni.
Cheerio,
ian -- keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Mr. Hamm wrote:
1. “David, You responded in one of your posts to me the following:
{Mr. Radka wrote:} >>I agree that a statement is wrong if it does not convey the correct meaning. But WHAT STATEMENT of mine do you refer to, and WHY is its meaning not correct? {Mr. Hamm responds:} I figure it only curtious if I answer this for you. Your statement that "psychopaths do not experience real anger", which we've seen cut and pasted from your posts many times now so I won't go and do it again, is wrong because the words used do not convey the meaning you intend. The word "real" means "actual; true; etc", which is the opposite of "fake". So, when you say psychopaths do not experience real anger, then the "not" negates the "real", which turns it into fake.”
>>You are making and manipulating your own surmises of word usage here. I wrote the Summary in such a way that anyone who wanted to understand it would have to read my sources decently well to get the sense of how PSYCHIATRISTS use terms. How I or Mr. Hamm use terms concerning psychopathy doesn’t matter, how psychiatrists use them does. When psychiatrists speak in terms of real/pseudo concerning this subject, they are speaking in a vernacular that presumes the listener is already clued-in to the psychiatric style of cognitions accorded to psychopathy. You have to already be a member of the club before you receive the secret password, so to speak. You can’t in all goodness of intention reduce how psychiatrists speak of psychopathy to ordinary terms. Now, the notion in various forms of “pseudologia phantastica” is an old one in psychiatry, and predates the reform of the psychopathic field begun by Cleckley in the 1950s. It refers to lie telling, which is observed by psychiatrists in a variety of patients, not only in psychopaths. Cleckley sensed that psychopaths live their whole lives in lies, in a manner of speaking in a pseudoworld. The psychopath is somehow unable to generate a sufficient emotional self-presence to get a reflective sense of a real, objective universe existing over and against him; he instead merely projects his arbitrariness up against what is for him nothing more than a kind of universal projection screen. This is the “world” as he fallaciously comprehends it. Because he lives in self-projections, the opportune conception Cleckley conceived to relate this was based to some extent on the notion of living in lies. Maybe this is the best concept, maybe not, but it was founded in accepted psychiatric practice. There is an historical element to it that you have to know about in order to understand, and obviously YOU DIDN’T READ ANY BOOKS because you don’t know of this and YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND.
2. “Now, what you intended by your statement was something other than "fake". From your above post, you seem to be saying that "They do experience anger, but that the emotion is 'muted', or 'less intense', than it is for non-psychopaths". In other words the anger is "real", only they experience less of it.”
>>This is a reasonable approximation of the Clecklean position concerning WHY psychopaths are emotionally inadequate, not entirely WHAT is entailed by this inadequacy. Cleckley basically thought they just didn’t have enough emotions to get to the critical mass that he thought grants personal dynamism to normal people. Not every psychiatrist sees it exclusively in this way; some start with Cleckley’s fundamental architecture and branch off in various ways.
3. “That means your original statement did not convey the meaning you intended. And so, by your own admission, your statement was wrong.
And, the meaning your words conveyed was quite apparent if you read and considered the comments returned to you.”
>>THE “COMMENTS RETURNED TO ME” WERE FROM PEOPLE WHO HADN’T READ WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, AND WHO THUS WERE BUTCHERING THE CONCEPTIONS OF BOTH THE PSYCHIATRISTS AND MY THEORY. THEY CAN’T EVER GET ON THE SAME PAGE WITH ME UNTIL THEY READ.
4. “Had you simply indicated that "real" was a poor choice of qualifier, because it leads to an ambiguous statement, it would have prevented this thread from getting so long while getting nowhere. Instead, you took the approach of continuing to use the ambiguous qualifier, which was obviously the source of the problem.”
>>You have no notion whereof you speak. Go to your library and READ a book! You did a database search on psychopaths, didn’t you? You were able to quote the subject headers in another post here. You should have taken out THE BOOKS I RECOMMENDED if you wanted to criticize me.
5. “As for your list of things people have called you, well, if you dish our insults, expect them to be returned. You antagonise, insult, and so forth, why should you expect any better in return?”
>>I was called a homosexual, a psychotic, a liberal, and a host of other epithets in a cowardly and uncivilized way of not facing up to what I am talking about here. With a few exceptions, most posters have insulted me as a way of denying the truth about the case.
6. “Anyway, since the A?R approach simply boils down to telling a consistent story, it's no longer of interest to me. It sounds more like a guideline on how to "write a good novel" than it is a guideline on how to solve a mystery.”
>>This statement is so inadequate I am taxed to conceive a way to correct it. Consider this a humble beginning: What difference does it make whether or not I “write a good novel” if I follow the evidence exactly and have a reason for everything I do? If all the details for a satisfying explanation of the evidence are there, then they are there. Hermeneutics vs. empiricism. Interpenetration of form and content.
7. “The bootstrap approach is useful for examining the internal validity of a theory (do all the parts hold together), but it is not proof of the theory.”
>>I’m not saying I have specific empirical evidence that Woolf Abrahams, say, is the man. But I’m not limiting the sense of truth of my theory to “internal validity” either. I’m going BEYOND what you call “bootstrapping.” I’m saying that A?R’s internal validity can be shown to be the best possible internal validity given the full body of the case evidence, and that it fundamentally resolves all open questions of the case, and therefore that it should be regarded as the solution by anyone who wishes to think logically about the case evidence.
8. “Even the bootstrap method requires that the implications of the theory be tested by emperical measurement at the points where the theory makes measureable predictions.”
>>You are taking my predictions disjointedly. If you do this, you merely are converting them from a holism of ideas to empiricism. You are yourself not “testing” A?R’s ideas. You’ve opted out of A?R without testing whether it is true or false, but claimed it inadequate anyway. The theory makes measurable predictions TAKEN AS A WHOLE.
9. “A?R has simply dropped the one aspect of the bootstrap that makes it scientific, or useful, in solving mysteries. The idea of it is to show which theories are invalid because they are not internally consistent (so time and effort need not be spent on expensive research to follow them up). Then, once one is left with a set of "vialbe theories", to figure out what research needs to be done to test the validity of one over the other. Since you advocate not doing research (it's emperical), you advocate story telling over case solving.”
>>You’ve got my whole method all confused and messed up, again. You’ve hauled back, wound your hips, and launched into your laundry with terrific force. Listen to me: I FULLY ADVOCATE DOING RESEARCH! I HAVE N-E-V-E-R ADVOCATED ‘NOT DOING RESEARCH!’ I LOVE THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE CASE! I STAND FOURSQUARE ON IT! THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS IS MY VERY BLOOD! Don’t I offer measurable, verifiable empirical “predictions” as you call them above? How about the handwriting on the Lusk letter? How about some more work on census records to establish Aaron’s location during the Terror?
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 388
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 9:45 am: | |
David,
I never gave my "word of honor" that I would continue to answer your questions, especially when they are the exact same ones I have already replied to several times and you refuse to acknowledge. For you to suggest otherwise is either a calculated attempt to ignore what was posted previously or another symptom of a delusional mindset.
But, yes, please continue claiming to be a genius on the level of Leonardo or Socrates and insinuating that we are all just too ignorant to recognize your greatness. I'm sure that will help.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2353
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi, Ian, to you as well.
Always interesting to read your posts -- and regarding my latest longer post here, I admit once again that I couldn't keep my fingers away this time either. The cookie jar of narcissism and stupidity is just too tempting.
Postludium:
I have noticed that David no longer answers my inputs, so I assume that he either thinks my views are ridiculous as usual, or he just simply ignores me because he knows that I am right.
Either way, I can accept his reasons.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 30, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
out of order
Friends,
I'd like to make a statement openly here. I have noticed a strong rememblance between Mr. Glenn Andersson (photo in the Profiles section) and Israel Lipski! The two are look-alikes! I believe this may mean that Mr. Andersson is a Polish Jew living in Sweden, and possibly a descendant of Lipski. Is this true, Mr. A?
Papa Lazarou David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:11 pm: | |
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. "I'm not just dismissing Swanson out of hand, I am simply pointing out that his words cannot be trusted completely as factual based upon their apparent assumed meaning."
>>There is no such thing as "an apparent assumed meaning." Everyone needs to interpret for her or himself, especially in the absence of complete information. If you want to say that Swanson's writings don't mean this or that, you have to be prepared to say WHY they don't, and offer an explanation of what they MIGHT really mean. You CAN'T just say "let's just assume he is wrong, because human beings are wrong"--this kind of statement is made with no reason whatever. It is a blandishment, a guess, a false decree of universality; it cannot be made without assuming that you have some absolute position from which you can judge all truth, which, in fact, nobody has. You have to have a REASON to say what Swanson is wrong about if you want to say he is wrong. You have to have your feet on the ground.
2. "That's not to say that I claim at all that he was lying, or being purposefully deceitful in something he wrote privately, but I think some people want him to be right so much that they fail to appreciate that he most likely got facts wrong, may only have passing knowledge of the events referenced, and so forth."
>>There is something complexly deficient about this reasoning that I find difficult to respond to. It is as if Mr. Norder is reasoning correctly within some given finite dimension, but then illicitly and incorrectly assumes that this reasoning is valid in another, different dimension. There is, on the one hand, the dimension that there are Ripperologists who "want Swanson to be right," I'll grant. And there is the dimension that Swanson, like all human beings, sometimes says things that are wrong. But these two items are totally unrelated. Just because Swanson is human doesn't mean we IN ANY WAY WHATEVER can dispense with what he wrote in the marginalia, unless WE HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT IT IS WRONG. When he says Kosminski died soon after incarceration he's wrong, all right. But that doesn't impugn his validity as a human being, per se, across the boards. It doesn't matter that you or I or the Man in the Moon want him to be right. When you imply that he is inherently untrustworthy as to the information he gives, you vacate the empirical standard. There is no empirical reason to say, as you do, that he "most likely got facts wrong."
3. "Well, I think we are basically in the same ballpark, other than disagreeing on whether human error in the source material should be considered only as a last possible resort or not. I'm obviously more cynical than you. Whether that's a good thing or not is for someone else to decide."
>>This will not do, Mr. Norder. If you want to make analytical comments on the case like this, then you have to take full responsibility for the truthfulness of what you say on yourself. You can't just think of yourself as expressing certain personal characteristics--cynicism, for example--in what you say and leave it at that. It is NOT "for someone else to decide;" YOU must be up for doing your own thinking, and you must provide specific REASONS for the positions you take. On this count, we've been waiting six months for you to provide any specific reasons for the multitude of positions you have taken on the A?R thread.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
Mr. Norder wrote, addressing Mr. Nelson:
1. Scott, Serious question: You're putting us on, right? {Mr. Nelson wrote of Mr. Mullins:} "Well, in your 26 years of life, what could you possibly know?" {Mr. Norder wrote:} Gee, Scott, there are 18 year olds out there who have already taken higher level classes on psychology than David (or presumably you, based upon your support of his statements) ever did.”
>>Mr. Nelson has a Master’s in anthropology, in addition to being an engineer. I have a Master’s in philosophy, in addition to being a Certified Public Accountant. Both of us have been evaluating deep and complex ideas in the field of the humanities for many years. He and I are both over age fifty. *** A?R is not an enterprise requiring specific training in psychology. It is rather based on the evaluation and comparison of arguments in a logical way, arguments which are available in psychiatric texts. You have to be smart to generate a theory like A?R, but you don’t have to undergo the specific training to become a psychologist. Evaluation of arguments is taught in many fields in the humanities. I have taken about thirty college courses in the humanities on the undergraduate and graduate levels, a considerable base of experience.
2. “An informed student in a high school psych class could spot some of the errors David made, because they are so fundamentally wrong.”
>>Please avoid claiming that I’ve made errors without quoting from my sources, Cleckley, Hare and Lykken, to explain specifically what these errors are. Write down the errors I’ve made right here, don’t falsely claim, as you have scores of times, that you’ve explained them previously when you haven’t. It is not an ethical thing to do on your part, in my opinion. You soil yourself.
3. “I thought attacking people based upon nationality was bad, but attacking based upon age is right up there. I know seven year olds who are at least smart enough to understand the concept that insulting a large number of people in an established group all at once, as you did in your last paragraph, is a bad idea. I don't know if you've been looking at David over in there in the lunatic fringe and secretly wishing to announce to the world that you belong there too, or what exactly you hope to accomplish. I mean, come on, if this theory of David's was in any way "brilliant," don't you think someone with real credentials in the field would have said so before you?”
>>Mr. Nelson’s comment that Mr. Mullins, at age 26, may not be experienced enough to formulate perspectives on certain issues is certainly not a mass insult he hurled against all young people. It is a general sort of thing often said about younger people by older people. My father says as much about me now.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2355
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:49 pm: | |
Oh dear Mr. Radka,
Hats off for proposing that as a theory after two years; because that's probably how long that photo's been up there...
Still, one question springs to mind... how on Earth does Mr Radka really knows what Israel Lipski looked like? Was he there? Maybe Mr. Radka himself is a true reincarnation? Oh I forgot, imagniation and generalisations...
And no, of course I am not of Polish origin and certainly not Jewish -- as my name would tell anyone with a brain larger than a peanut.
As I suspected, still no reply to my comments on Radka's haltering psychological deductions -- in other words, he thereby acknowledges that I am right. I can live with that.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 01, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 406
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 2:14 am: | |
Regarding the first of David's most recent posts...
First up, you are lying when you claim that we've been waiting six months for me to support any of my claims, because I have supported them extensively. You just pretend I haven't because you can't dispute the facts I presented and refuse to admit you are wrong.
Secondly, your replies to those quotes you took from another thread show just how ridiculously wrong-headed you are. You claimed that because Swanson says that Kosminski was taken to his brother's home, and because Aaron Kosminski didn't have a brother, that that somehow proves your insane theory that some psychopathic relative of his lied for some unkown reason and claimed to be Aaron's brother when he really wasn't. I pointed out that Swanson simply could have been wrong and meant brother-in-law instead of just brother or otherwise got confused, as just one example out of many why your conclusion doesn't make sense. So now you are whining that we have to accept what Swanson as meaning only what he said because we are supposed to believe it's ridiculous to think that he could have been off a little bit without specific iron-clad evidence that he was?
You'd think in all your studies of philosophy you might have heard of Occam's Razor and figured that Swanson slipped up sllghtly or was told bad information, but instead you want us to believe bizarre conspiracy theories. To put it bluntly, you're crazy if you think that argument is going to fly with anyone.
Regarding your second post...
People with more direct knowledge of psychopaths were talking about what they knew about them and how that disproves points of your theory, and suddenly Scott Nelson just gave up and claimed that 26 year olds are too young to know anything... and you defend that? We're supposed to just throw out anyone's opinion, no matter how much better informed they are than you, just because they haven't been alive as long as you?
And you admit that you and he have absolutely no background in psychology whatsoever and now amazingly claim that you don't need that kind of experience to judge your theory... even though you say the entire thing is based upon the concept that the killer was a psychopath and that all your conclusions spring from that premise? You'd think maybe you'd want to know what you were talking about in your premise before you go any farther, but I guess not, because you're old so don't have to actually bother learning about anything because you magically know more than the people who have been trained in the field or who have dealt with the cases firsthand.
All you have demonstrated is that the two of you may be older than some posters here but most definitely not any wiser.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Oh Jeezz..
Mr. Norder posted this on October 16, 2004 - 1:00am
As far as arguments and attempted insults go, your latest post is pretty nonsensical.
You should note that the editors of all the Ripper magazines have ignored David Radka, and Ripper Notes had done so long before I took over. I'm not aware of any other published author who takes him seriously, and a fair number have even posted to this very thread pointing out the gaping holes in David's logic.
If you are trying to claim that the experts in this field have not called David's work brilliant because they just haven't seen it yet, you are sadly mistaken.
Well as far as the editors of other Ripper magazines ignoring David up to this point, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
But more importantly, I let your comment of "experts" in the field actually seeing David's work slip by without further clarification. Which experts? When did they review it and what specifically did they say? I couldn't find that information in any of your archived posts.
I'm not asking for the proverbial three paragraph summary that others have asked you to write, just a couple of names. I'll even accept what you say that they said about A?R. I'm very open minded.
Thank you.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
what is with this thread. why do people (as in David and his friend) drag up stuff we said two months ago. are you really that slow at reading or are you and David the only ones giving this thread the attention it deserves, ie little and not often? |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:03 am: | |
I come to this thread and discussion late, and warily. Clearly there are strong feelings here and vivid emotions!! Forgive me if I am covering points which are old in terms of this discussion.
I do pay tribute to the work, energy and commitment Mr Radka has put into his paper. He clearly believes what he writes.
It is regrettable that I was unable to understand most of what was proposed because of the jargon, and opaqueness of the style. If someone wants to win support from others for their ideas, then they have to communicate those ideas in an intelligible way. I am afraid this paper fails that test for me. Plain English please if you seek support.
I am also not convinced that, in this case, the denseness of the text and the psuedo-scientific terminology is not a smokescreen to cover some less than clear thinking and some "fudges" where facts and theory fail wholly to coincide.
I am no criminologist and no psychologist, but experience makes me wary of "Agatha Christie"-type approaches to murder cases. I am sure that people DO plan their killings, but a plan of the apparent sophistication outlined by Mr Radka - involving a desire to be recognised in the home; throwing suspicion on another; seeking to have witnesses act in certain ways and manipulate official rewards (I take it I have understood what is proposed in the paper) is both anachronistic and unlikely to reflect the pre-occupations of an immigrant Jew in the London of 1888.
This is not to say that I reject Kosminski as a suspect (he would be among my suggestions for JtR) or that I disagree with some of what Mr Radka suggests (JH Levy is my candidate for the key witness).
I also find new and interesting insights into the "tailor's language" inscribed into Eddowes' dead flesh.
But NO, I do not find it credible that a C19th individual, from the background concerned, would develop a plan of this nature, put it into effect, seek to control each element (the explanation of the Double Event is unbelievable). There are REAL questions as to whether Stride was a Ripper victim at all, so to build a theory around a set number of victims is rather unwise. equally, to argue back that Stride MUST have been a victim of JtR because the theory demands it would be false logic. (I don't think Mr Radka does argue the latter, I simply cover both approaches here.)
I also cannot give credence to the idea that the murderer decides to leave a message and then goes off to find chalk and scouts around for a convenient place to write his graffito. JtR (whoever he was) was cannier than that I think. neither do I think Mr Radka's explanation of the word "Juwes" any more convincing than Knight's largely discredited masonic interpretation.
Sorry Mr Radka, I respect your efforts, but after careful consideration, I am unconvinced by an approach which relies upon "pure reason" to solve this crime. As others have said, simplicity should be the keyword and what you have offered is just too elaborate for me.
All just my humble opinion, of course.
Phil
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
Want the country in which you live to be used against what you say like it has some kind of relevance to what you say?
Want things you said in private emails years ago posting out of context on a public message board?
Want to have lies made up about your personal life?
Want to be subjected to playground taunts?
Want to be accused of committing criminal activities?
Want to be accused of syndicated gangstarism (whatever that means)?
What to have your age used as proof of your IQ?
Want to be told that people with qualifications are better than others?
Want your intelligence insulting, want to be called obtuesely inadequate (like it makes sense)?
Want to be told that sometimes mentally ill people deserve to be hit?
Want to be ignored for many months on end then have something you said months ago taken out of context and used against you when you can no longer remember saying it?
Want to be accused of lying?
Want to be told the author of A?R is comparable to Da Vinci/Plato/Hegel and that is why you cannot understand what he is saying?
Want to "gain something"?
Want to be told you supplied no evidence when you have supplied evidence several times that contradicted the view of A?R?
Want to HAVE RANDOM words shouted "at you"?
Want to have "random words" put into quotation marks?
Want to take the words of Robert Anderson as the gospel truth about everything?
Never feel the need to apologise?
You are in the right place... oh and
Did I miss anything?
Not that i am trying to put you off Phil. I am just trying to get a bit of perspective introduced into this thread.
Spry please feel free to delete this if it offends!
I'm glad to get this off my chest
Jenni |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3594
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
Jenni you sound a bit disgruntled.
Robert |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 78
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | |
Jenni,
I usually avoid this thread like the plague (mainly because I have a very short attention span, and lose track after two lines.. my fault, not anyone elses).
I just wanted to tell you that I, for one, and I'm sure many others, appreciate your input on these boards. I hear your frustration, but just know that your views on this case are appreciated. You make a whole lot of sense. Don't take anything that anyone says to you in a negative sense personally.
They obviously don't know you, nor appreciate your knowledge of the case.
Bestest,
Lyn
(Glenn.. maybe time to put a more recent pic in your profile! Must say that I can't see where David was coming from - you look Swedish to me! But, methinks a new pic is in order anyway. Bestest, Lyn) |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 79
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 9:48 pm: | |
Phil,
Thank you, you put it in a nutshell for me.
Bestest,
Lyn |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2358
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
Phil,
Reading your last post, I can see that your future postings will be something to look forward to. Well put and... as Lyn say; in a nut shell.
Lyn,
I am afraid that picture is the only one I've got and I haven't changed one bit. At least I have not turned Jewish or Polish during the last couple of years.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Liam Colliagn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Hi there,
Isn't it about time we put this thread to bed? Seems to me that everybody wants to play David Radka's stupid little mind games. All has been said that needs to be said.
Liam.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2359
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Liam,
Believe me, we already know that!
(I'd suggest you say the same thing to those who gets stuck in the Maybrick diary/watch department...)
It's fun just the same, though -- at least for me.
I wouldn't be here otherwise.
And for the record, the mind games works both ways, as far as I am concerned...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 149
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
David..
Here,bubeleh...This is what a forensic pathologist has to say about the Case.
Unlike Cleckley and Hare,this man read the details of all the WM...
You will notice that it mentions a psychotic.
What you should have done is gone to a psychiatrist and run all this by him from Day One...THATS why I wanted you to answer my question from before.
Its my guess that you fabricated this psychotic of yours out of a few cases you read prior to putting the A?R together...Thats just my opinion and thats as far as I go discussing it.
Now I probably will "face the ire" of people who would wish to break my nose for posting this here....
Call me what you wish,numbnuts,but I am fair.
December 3, 2004
Dear Mr. Brown:
I have perused the forensic scientific literature and also checked
with colleagues regarding the question you have posed pertaining to
ritualistic type serial murders.
I have not come up with anything that closely parallels the kinds of
eviscerations that occurred in the Ripper homicides. If you have any
specific suggestions or references that you would like to call to my
attention, please do so.
I believe it can be reasonably inferred that the Ripper was
psychotic. Perhaps you should pursue that aspect of the case with a
forensic psychiatrist. I recommend a good friend and highly respected
colleague...
He is extremely busy, but he may be willing to provide you with his
psychiatric analysis regarding this matter.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
CHW/km
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 152
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 7:50 pm: | |
Dave...Its been brought to my attention that there is a difference between psychotic and psychopath. I was in error by connecting your theory to a psychotic and not a psychopath,with the above letter from Dr.Wecht. I am fully aware of the fact you opt for a psychopath....Likewise,a trip to a clinical psychiatrist with text,would not have been a bad idea...If I had taken ten seconds to think about the difference,I would have not posted the above when I did.
So much for that.My mistake.....
Numbnuts Brown
(Message edited by howard on December 03, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2360
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
Howard,
"Its my guess that you fabricated this psychotic of yours out of a few cases you read prior to putting the A?R together..."
Indeed, Howard. Spot on! Let's drink to that. 
Regarding Mr. Wechts interesting comments, I find it a bit strange that he can't find any other references or examples of similar crimes. There are actually a number of them.
I think he might be on the right track, though, when he calls the Ripper "psychotic". In criminal psychology one must differ between psychotic and psychopatic. The first expression mainly refers to a disorganized, more or less paranoid schizofrenic/autistic criminal, while psychopathic means an organized one, mainly a psychopath/sociopath. These are roughly classified generalisations, though, but still...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2361
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
You see, Howard... You beat me to it!
As for you being incorrect in connecting a psychotic killer to Jack the Ripper, is a matter of debate. I'd think not, but it's true that it has nothing at all to do with Mr Radka's character.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 153
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 9:42 pm: | |
Glenn...What I sincerely was trying to do was pass on this information about Wecht to Dave.
Unfortunately,I misread and misinterpreted the description in my effort to post it here. There was no intention of hassling him. If anything,it made me look silly. I know this theory deals with a psychopath. It was an honest mistake.
Lets go,Glenn....
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2362
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
Yes, I know you did, Howard.
Radka is talking about psychopathy and I am well aware of that you misinterpreted Mr. Wecht's "psychosis" term -- you don't have to explain. I tried to imply that in my last post.
Even though this has no relevancy on Radka's psychological sandwich character, I was simply saying, that if Mr. Wecht really did say "psychosis" and not psychopathy, then I believe he may be right -- Radka's thesis aside.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 03, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 154
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 11:23 pm: | |
Glenn...I know you know how I meant it,buddy..I just wanted to clarify that I never thought Dave meant a "guy who talks to trash cans", but rather a person with an ability to "pass" in normal society, waiting to unleash his anger. I just felt it was incumbent on me to admit my error and thanks for the boost,old man ! Whether or not its either one of the two types,is for others to discuss on this thread.
|
O. P. Ennion
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
But Radka has to keep this thread going - it's the only place that his silly ideas are being discussed. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 9:59 pm: | |
Cludgy wrote:
1. “Even assuming that JTR succeeded(in the early hours of the morning 9th Nov) in drawing attention to the mutilated corpse of Mary Kelly lying in Millers Court, what kind of logic draws you to the conclusion that her discovery would have lead to a full scale riot, with a hundred people dead?”
>>I’ve explained the logic I use many times, Cludgy: holistic, question-asking, responsive, door-opening, context sensitive logic. I link all the pieces of evidence together by logic, and that is WHY I take the positions I take. What is so hard to understand about that? Is this so alien to your experience that you can’t get the first notions of it stirring within you after six months of reading the A?R thread? Where is your sense of dynamism, drama, irony, and thoughtfulness? Bake your own bread for once. Put on your silk kimono and stride with confidence into your library. Pour out a snifter of fine brandy for yourself, settle into your avocado leather chair, feel the heat from the hearth, let yourself live a little. Now think: The Miller’s Court murder took place some time after the double event, an unusual march of days had lapsed for a sexual serial murderer to be inactive. It took place right about when the horsemen were reporting for duty, the same men that had rode into the unruly crowd in Trafalgar Square, resulting in deaths exactly one year previous. A hundred thousand hard core unemployed, the same sort that had rioted the previous year, had gathered to watch the Lord Mayor’s procession. The murder took place indoors, where he’d have opportunity to perpetrate the most abominable mutilations, and right in a prostitutes’ court, where it would be discovered by one of them. With all the fear expressed by prostitutes in the media at the time, you know what would happen: she’d scream bloody murder and bolt out of Miller’s Court like a horse from the gate on Derby Day. Isn’t that enough tinder and spark for you? Or are you an illogical person? I could go on listing reasons for another two pages, but you get the idea, I’m sure. Plus, what a normal person’s impression of what would happen isn’t operative here—a psychopath’s is. He wants what he wants, with respect to Levy and the reward money.
2. “Why a riot? I think you are being a little bit dramatic Mr Radka, your comments smack of melodrama rather than reality, and your theory is little more than that don't you think? It's not a bad little story actually.”
>>Psychopaths don’t experience reality as we do. They are pettily melodramatic people.
3. “Correct me if I'm wrong, but history dictates that riots(regardless of the injustices heaped upon the poorer classes of those districts) resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people in the districts of Spitalfields and Whitechapel is a decided non starter. My gut feeling is that there would have been no riots.”
>>Mine too. Also, there wouldn’t have been a pogrom as a result of the double event in England either, as there had been in Russ-Poland where the Polish Jews came from. But that wouldn’t stop our psychopath from believing he could trigger these events, if that is what he wanted to happen. Please reread my passages on psychopathic externalization.
4. “But of course you are going to say(and this is your ace card regarding criticism of your theory) that we are dealing with a physcopath, and that what is important is the fact that he would have envisaged a riot upon someone discovering Mary Kelly in the early hours of Nov 9th.”
>>Why wouldn’t I say this? People like you and I don’t commit sexual serial murder, do they?
(signed) The Ace of the Whitechapel murders
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Mr Radka,
I have never replied to your posts for i feel somewhat uneducated to do so.
To be frank your posts irritate me, for you are trying to analyze impossible situations.
The whitechapel murderer to put it midly had a screw loose, to what degree is impossible to say, was he a raving lunatic?, possibly although unlikely such a person would have escaped detection, was he a sexual killer?. possibly but there lacks evidence of connection.
Was he a insecure individual that was out to make a point?. possibly Etc ,Etc.
All killers have a state of mind that is individual to that state of mind, and cannot be accurately assesed.
a laymans comment to your highly intellectual observations, but lets keep it more down to earth, otherwise the sales of pain killers will escalate.
Regards Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
