|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 11:05 pm: |       |
Mr. Radka---How do I know the Swanson Marginalia is genuine? How can I determine this? RP |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2368
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 1:23 am: | |
David Radka:
"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 voice of ignorance has spoken once more. What is there about the evidence that leaves trails of a psychopath? Besides in order to make it fit your motive and scenarios?
The reasons for choosing paranoid schizofrenia as a center is absolutely justified.
Radka again:
"The man was never apprehended, he didn’t say voices were ordering him to kill prostitutes to a police interrogator."
Paranoid schizofrenic killers are not as easily detained or captured as many people seem to think -- several serial killers of this type have eluded the police for a long time (in Sweden we've recently had one that eluded the police for 15 years) and I believe it would have been even harder, if not almost impossible, to apprehend and catch him in 1888.
The reason he didn't tell the police that he heard voices to kill prostitutes, is that he simply never was interrogated at all by the police and probably never found.
You are letting your obsession with that a psychopath committed the crimes, in addition to the fact that your belief in that you've found one specific person who was the Ripper, is diminishing you and letting you astray on goose chases. You are not driven by facts, but by your own prefabricated notion of how you believe things SHOULD be. You are not objective. You don't see the wood for the trees. You're blindfolded. It's a tragedy.
All the best,
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Ian wrote:
1. “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: {Mr. Radka wrote:} “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." {Ian wrote:} 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?”
>>Because at the time I had no experience tying flys, but I have a good deal of critically reviewed experience in reading in the humanities and writing about it. What is the problem here? I’m talking about two different situations: fly tying, where I had no experience, and reading and theorizing in the humanities, where I do.
2. “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?”
>>In order to tie working flys you have to integrate a great plethora of things. Get a good video on fly tying and fly-fishing and you’ll see what I mean—it is quite challenging getting started. You have to be able to understand how a trout looks at a fly underwater in terms of what it needs and expects under the circumstances, and be able to translate that into buck tail and tinsel. It is an interactive and responsive kind of thing, and that is why I chose it for illustration here. There is no template—you are on your own. It is a matter of your central nervous system becoming adequate to accomplish a given something, and involves connections that really can’t be specified ahead of time. I read a number of books on fly tying, but that wasn’t quite enough, and tired of it realizing this. I bought some Mickey Finns and spent a good deal of time watching how they performed in the water, and learned how the different parts of the fly fit together to make a whole presentation. After much trial and error, somehow my fingers eventually learned the right moves to make the item. How I really don’t know, but the gap was bridged at length; I learned how to get out of the way; a noun became a verb.
3. “How many is that number which makes one an expert without having any field experience?”
>>What do you mean by “field experience” here? I think you may speak adventitiously. I have got a great deal of field experience reading and writing in the field of the humanities. I don’t think very many Ripperologists could do what I do, but some can. Martin Fido certainly could, for one example.
4. “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.”
>>Considering the degree to which he got to winging it the night of the double event, especially in view of his encountering someone he knew walking together with two men he didn’t, he might have very impulsively seized on a poor approximation of tailoring symbols when he marked Eddowes’ face.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Mr. Norder wrote to Mr. Hill on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 1:35 pm:
”…I think we are basically in the same ballpark {concerning the marginalia}…I'm obviously more cynical than you. Whether that's a good thing or not is for someone else to decide.”
Alright then, let’s review what Mr. Norder says, so that we can indeed reasonably decide about the worth and value of his “cynicism,” which he has alluded to a number of times on this thread. A recent example of what Mr. Norder thinks of as his cynicism is found here:
“…And you {Mr. Radka} admit that you and {Mr. Nelson}…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.” [Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 2:14 am]
Above, Mr. Norder relies on his faculty of “cynicism” to enlighten him concerning when someone is making unfounded statements. Disregarding logic and evidence, he is led to conclude that what I have written about psychopathy must by definition be wrong just because I’m not a trained psychologist. His conclusions about A?R, founded on his “cynicism,” include my “lack of background” (despite my decade of work in the humanities), my position that “all my conclusions spring from the premise” of psychopathy (despite that they also agree in detail with the empirical case evidence), that I don’t “know what I’m talking about” concerning psychopathy (despite my having read many textbooks on the subject that I quote from and cite here), and that I rely on “magical” thinking. But surely it is less a case of Mr. Norder’s arguments being “cynical” as he says, than inferior. (A) He does not know how to grapple with the deepest issues of the case (the nature of psychopathy, the reasons why the murders were committed, the purposes behind the double event, the meaning of the Wentworth graffitus and of the Lusk letter, the resolution of Anderson’s statements, etc.), or in turn to realize that A?R is doing so in a manner valuable to Ripperology, or to reasonably evaluate A?R. (B) His position that he possesses the knowledge to realize that I don’t understand the concept of psychopathy is contradicted by his position that the only people who can deal with psychopathy are trained and “experienced” experts. (By saying that he knows that I am wrong about psychopathy because I am untrained, he assumes that he is in a position to know the field of psychopathy in depth himself, despite that he is untrained in this field.)
Mr. Norder has stated repeatedly on this thread that he has provided complete support for his charges against me. As he says to me recently, on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 2:14 am: “…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.”
But review of Mr. Norder’s charges clearly shows that they are empty invective and contain no support from psychiatric sources, while my assertions concerning the Whitechapel murderer agree with psychiatric descriptions of psychopaths. Here is a concise compendium of Mr. Norder’s charges, in his own words. Their cynicism, vacancy of reason, and the emptiness of scholarly verification in them become clearly apparent as you read through.
( ) parentheses are Mr. Norder’s. { }brackets are mine. [ ] brackets indicate posting reference per the archives.
MR. NORDER WRITES:
“…I fully understand the term "psychopath." David's theory in many places deviates quite substantially from that concept. {The definition of}…the Oxford Medical Dictionary is accurate, for as short as it is, but note that it does not include all the bizarre lack of coherent communication ability, incredibly irrational behavior and so forth that are a cornerstone of David's theory…the modern term is called Antisocial Personality Disorder and is described in DSM IV, the standard up-to-date reference for diagnosing mental illness and defects… David seems content to try to rationalize the most bizarre nonsensical behavior as psychopathy, even when it doesn't fit the concept at all.” [Monday, May 10, 2004 - 7:08 am]
“These days there are two checklists for determining psychopathology, the DSM IV Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnostic criteria and Dr. Hare's PCL-R (psychopath checklist-revised). Neither one includes this irrationality and delusional thinking you keep bringing up. There's also nothing in them that support your beliefs that a psychopath is horrible at communication or that they lack all emotions.” [Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 9:24 am]
“…some of the supposed symptoms of psychopathy you base your theory on (lack of all emotion, disordered thinking, poor communication ability) are not at all part of the diagnostic process for either the DSM IV checklist or Hare's PCL-R criteria. These two references are used by the professionals in this field. If you make a claim about psychopaths that is not supported in these two references, then your claim is wrong, unless you are claiming than you know more about the issue than the entire profession of psychiatry.” [Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 2:36 pm]
“…Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist Revised and the American Psychiatric Association DSM IV manual…both say otherwise {to David’s account of the Whitechapel murderer’s actions.}” [Monday, May 24, 2004 - 9:35 pm]
“…if you are going to use terms like psychopathy that have a specific meaning in a professional field, that you use the term to mean the same thing that the professionals do. I personally don't care what you think psychopathy means, I care what the professionals like Dr. Hare and the American Psychiatric Association say. If you say something that's the opposite of what they say, as you often do, that means you are wrong. It's that simple.” [Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:56 am]
“Dr. Robert Hare -- mentioned by David earlier as an expert whose writings he allegedly is familiar with -- thinks the DSM criteria do not go far enough and has his own guidelines, which are accepted by many professionals. And, again, what he says about the condition directly contradicts David's claims on several important points with a direct bearing on David's theory.” [Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 8:49 pm]
“…the APA's DSM and Dr. Hare's PCL-R checklist both prove David wrong…” [Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:59 pm]
“Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (created specifically to be what he sees as a better tool than the DSM for this one diagnosis) directly contradicts David.” [Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:59 pm]
“{Mephisto asked:} "Norder, You've never seen Hare's checklist have you?"
{Mr. Norder answered:} Yes, actually, that's how I know it contradicts what you and David are saying.” [Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:55 am]
“David's ideas of how a psychopath acts (which is what he bases his entire theory on) do not fit the expert's descriptions of the disorder, whether it be the APA's DSM-IV, Dr. Hare's PCL-R, or any of the others. Basically all David has done is pick over quotes from some books while ignoring the major aspects of psychopathology and cooked up a highly implausible story based upon his misunderstanding of what he read.” [Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 1:21 am]
Here is a summary of Mr. Norder’s many empty charges against me. He claims that my description of psychopathy is faulty because it makes these assertions, which he says are comprehensively refuted by the PCL-R and the DSM-IV:
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.
Here are the PCL-R and the DSM-IV checklists, just as I originally posted them, with my annotated references tying every single applicable provision in them directly into the A?R Summary. A?R fits these expert descriptions of psychopathy fully. I have labeled the specific passages that refute Mr. Norder’s above three charges:
[Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm]
The following categories are those of Dr. Hare’s “Psychopathy Checklist,” shown on page 34 of his 1993 book “Without Conscience” {New York: The Guilford Press, 1993} plus those of his later work as previously published on the internet. If anyone can find additional categories related to Hare’s checklists {PCL-R}, please post them, and I will respond to them. AS YOU CAN SEE BY MY ANNOTATIONS, THE ‘A?R’ THEORY CONFORMS AND CORRESPONDS EXACTLY TO ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA. THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER, AS ‘A?R’ INTERPRETS HIM, EXHIBITS ALL APPLICABLE CHARACTERISTCS SHOWN ON DR. HARE’S CHECKLIST. NO FURTHER CRITERA BEYOND THE CHECKLIST ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN HIS ACTIONS.
GLIBNESS / SUPERFICIAL CHARM
Exhibited by JtR in repeatedly talking prostitutes into working for him despite that they were becoming wary of encountering him. Had the ability of presenting himself to them in a good light. Slick and smooth.
EGOCENTRIC / GRANDIOSE SENSE OF SELF-WORTH
Massive evidence of a narcissistic, projection-based personal identity throughout the case evidence. For example, when mutilating the body of Annie Chapman at the rear of 29 Hanbury Street, remained oblivious to twenty people just about to arise to go to work in Spitalfields market living in the building—essentially, he projected his own existence up to the outsides of the windows at the back of the house they would be looking out, and no further. For him, nothing existed on the other side of those windows. Conduct of similar caliber throughout the murder series indicating an impudent fearlessness. Strong sense of the world revolving around him and his intentions alone, despite clearly making provisions to evade police. Inability to believe that other people in the immediate area had valid viewpoints of their own, which could swiftly lead to his arrest. Murders dramatic, theatrical and grandiose in nature. Clearly felt he had the ability to do anything he wanted to do, including deliberately exposing himself to witnesses in Berner and Duke Streets in order to use them to extort the reward money. Clearly attempted to make himself the center of attention of millions of people.
NEED FOR STIMULATION OR EXCITEMENT / PRONE TO BOREDOM
Strong sense of the murders being fun and thrilling in nature for the murderer. JtR experiences the shallow sense of fear in committing them—the heightened heartbeat and adrenalin rush, without the deeper aspects of feeling personally intimidated or worried about being captured. Living for the moment, inadequate sense of a personal future. Becoming wealthy by extorting the reward would provide him the financial means for further stimulations.
PATHOLOGICAL LYING
Extremely confident in the use of use of fantastical and pseudo-logical concepts such as the setting of the Jewish population against itself (Summary item 10-2), the witnesses’ fear of reprisal on the part of the Jewish community (20-3), the ability of the witnesses Joseph Levy and George Lusk to receive, understand, and act on far-fetched fantastical criteria concerning the marks on Eddowes’ face, the Wentworth Graffitus and the Lusk letter (11, 20, 21). Establishes that the murderer is on the borderline of living in a pseudo-logical world of his own arbitrary creation, or that he casually and arbitrarily passes back and forth from such a world to objective reality. He is essentially so committed to lying that he forgets or loses acuteness with respect to being able to tell the difference between an effective falsehood and mere self-projection, if it concerns his ability to get something he wants. {Refutes Mr. Norder’s charge #3.}
DECEITFUL / CONNING / MANIPULATIVE
Attempted to con witnesses into not turning him over to the police (16). Planned later to con them into paying the reward to him (16). Tried to con Lusk into resuming his efforts to seek a Home Office reward despite Matthews’ specific statement that he would no longer take heed of outsiders’ appeals (21). Tried to con the Gentiles and Jews into violent conflict with one another (20-4). Conned Stride into walking behind the green gates with him after he had attacked her (19). Tried to con local prostitutes into an explosive emotional display for the purpose of disrupting the Lord Mayor’s procession (23). Indications of further manipulative behaviors throughout the murder series. Sense of real pride in his ability to get what he wants by lying indicated by repeated conning behaviors, essentially at every perceived opportunity.
LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT
Inapplicable, because JtR was not apprehended. We don’t have any way of knowing whether or not he felt remorseful concerning what he did.
SHALLOW EMOTIONAL RESPONSE
Massive sense of cold-bloodedness (i.e., shallow emotion) throughout murder series, despite its being theatrical, dramatic and gory (i.e., emotional) in nature. Emotional states short-lived and unsustained by the murderer. Some necessary emotions missing altogether, such as a lack of adequate sense of fear of being captured or of punishment for his actions. Was able to walk away from crime scenes showing no emotional response or agitation related to what he had just done, so as not to give himself away to passers by. Showed keen ability to appreciate his predicament at the crime scenes cognitively, since he always was able to engineer his escape from them, but not emotionally, since he lacked adequate fear for his own security. This behavior indicates cognitive intelligence, but at the same time a lack of emotional intelligence or depth. {Refutes Mr. Norder’s charge #1.}
CALLOUS / LACK OF EMPATHY
Completely unable to put himself in the shoes of Schwartz, Levy, Lusk, and the Jewish community to be able to appreciate that they likely would not have enough information communicated by him (by the marks on Eddowes’ face, the graffitus, and the Lusk letter) to be able to feel intimidated in the ways in which he planned for them, or that they probably wouldn’t feel intimidated even if they could comprehend the intentions of his obtuse communications. He believes they will do what he wishes simply because he wishes it. Many mistakes in his conning behaviors indicating lack of appreciation of the target victims’ perspectives, resulting in only partial success.
PARASITIC LIFESTYLE
Markings on Eddowes’ face and Wentworth graffitus clearly indicate a committed attempt to enter into a parasitic relationship with Levy, which was successful. Attempt to extort reward, albeit unsuccessful, indicates parasitism on society and government. Levy’s identification of Aaron Kosminski to Robert Anderson indicates murderer’s skillful parasitism in influencing Levy subsequent to the cessation, despite Levy’s being in a position to turn him over to the police. Forced Levy and family members to protect him in order to protect themselves. Repeated examples of parasitism indicate an instinct for it.
POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS
Repeatedly reacted pettily to perceived insults or slights. Killed Tabram because he felt irked that his significant other exercised her maternal authority to admit Aaron into their household—an act of emotional “displacement” frequently seen in psychopaths. Double event occasioned by John Pizer having stolen the center of attention from him. Miller’s Court affair resulted from Levy not humbly entreating him to stop murdering on behalf of the Jewish community. Responded in the classic sense of a psychopath in a short-tempered and hotheaded way to frustration and being disciplined by another person. Despite that behavior was hair-triggered, the murder scenes reflect orderliness, indicating “cold” anger. {Refutes Mr. Norder’s charge #2.}
PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
Inapplicable, because we do not know of JtR’s lifestyle in this respect.
EARLY BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS
Inapplicable, because we do not know of JtR’s childhood and adolescence.
LACK OF REALISTIC LONG TERM GOALS
Although the communications related to the double event (the markings on Eddowes’ face, the graffitus and the Lusk letter) are brightly conceived, often on the spur of the moment, they have almost no chance of achieving their intended long-term effects; indicates a disability with respect to planning for the long term. It would be very unlikely that he could later talk witnesses into identifying Aaron for the purpose of sharing the reward, as he intended. Places himself repeatedly in positions of abject weakness in the long run in order to achieve short run effects.
IMPULSIVITY
Repeatedly makes major strategic decisions on the spur of the moment. Decides to kill Eddowes despite that he knows Levy might mention his name to Lawende or Harris, thus compromising his very purpose in killing her. Murders committed not based on a deep sense of anger, but simply out of idle whims and stray thoughts (for example, fronting Edward Hyde in George Yard.) Doing accorded greater weight than thinking or planning. Reacted to the chronology of ongoing events on a day-to-day basis. I.e., perpetrated double event on first weekend after Pizer was acquitted by the Coroner, sent Lusk letter immediately upon learning that Matthews had issued a statement rejecting further outside influences, etc. Essentially had no plan in the murder series, and merely reacted to opportunities as he perceived their occurrence.
IRRESPONSIBILITY
The gratuitously foolhardy nature of the murder series conveys a strong sense of the murderer believing there was little or no chance that he would ever have to pay a price for what he was doing.
FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS
Inapplicable, since JtR was never formally called to account for his crimes.
MANY SHORT TERM RELATIONSHIPS
Massive evidence of short-term relationships with prostitutes he then killed, and witnesses he tried to con and manipulate. Lack of any sense that these conned witnesses would later turn him in after he would have had done with them, i.e., he felt that once he was done with someone, the person wouldn’t bother him again.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Inapplicable, because we do not know of JtR’s adolescence.
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL RELEASE
Inapplicable, because we do not know of any history of the murderer’s incarceration in prison or mental institutions.
ADULT ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR / CRIMINAL VERSATILITY
Murder series profoundly, directly and intentionally disrespectful to civility in nature. Unstable lifestyle featuring outwardly civil behavior most of the time punctuated by occasional gross violations of social norms. JtR as the ultimate example of an uncivilized man, or a man pursuing totally uncivilized ends. Criminal versatility indicated in the mixing together of sexual serial murder and extortion.
[Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:01 pm]
Source: DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.) Pages 645-650.
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR 301.7 ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER
A. THERE IS A PERVASIVE PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR AND VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS OCURRING SINCE AGE 15 YEARS, AS INDICATED BY THREE (OR MORE) OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) FAILURE TO CONFORM TO SOCIAL NORMS WITH RESPECT TO LAWFUL BEHAVIORS AS INDICATED BY REPEATEDLY PERFORMING ACTS THAT ARE GROUNDS FOR ARREST
>>No problem for JtR here. He murdered six women.
(2) DECEITFULNESS, AS INDICATED BY REPEATED LYING, USE OF ALIASES, OR CONNING OTHERS FOR PERSONAL PROFIT OR PLEASURE
>>JtR attempted to con the anarchistic and capitalistic Jews to fight one another; he attempted to con the Jews and the Gentiles to fight one another; he attempted to con the witnesses into not turning him in, and later planned to con them into identifying Aaron and then turning over the reward money to him; he successfully conned Stride into walking behind the green gates with him despite having just attacked her; and he attempted to con George Lusk into continuing to push for a Home Office reward despite Matthews’ letter. Actions engaged in for both profit and pleasure.
(3) IMPULSIVITY OR FAILURE TO PLAN AHEAD
>>Decided to continue with plans to kill Eddowes despite having been sighted by a man who knew him in the company of two others who didn’t, and to whom he might have mentioned him, relying on later largely inadequate actions (e.g. the graffitus) to bail himself out of trouble; overall strategy of intentionally exposing himself to witnesses at crime scenes with the conviction he could extort them, as opposed to them leveraging him, is grossly and pseudo-logically incompetent.
(4) IRRITABILITY AND AGGRESSIVENESS, AS INDICATED BY REPEATED PHYSICAL FIGHTS OR ASSAULTS
>>Petty irritation and irksomeness responsible for the initiation of each phase of the murder series—(1) killed Tabram when having a minor tiff with his wife over her maternal authority concerning care for her brother; (2) engineered double event when John Pizer captured center of public attention from him; (3) murdered Kelly when Levy failed to approach him beseechingly on behalf of the Jewish people to refrain from further murders. {Refutes Mr. Norder’s charges #1 and #2.}
(5) RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF SELF OR OTHERS
>>Massive indications of foolhardiness throughout the murder series.
(6) CONSISTENT IRRESPONSIBILITY, AS INDICATED BY REPEATED FAILURE TO SUSTAIN CONSISTENT WORK BEHAVIOR OR HONOR FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
>>Inapplicable to JtR, because we have no information about him concerning these matters.
(7) LACK OF REMORSE, AS INDICATED BY BEING INDIFFERENT TO OR RATIONALIZING HAVING HURT, MISTREATED, OR STOLEN FROM ANOTHER
>>Lack of remorse inapplicable, because we have no information concerning whether JtR felt remorseful for what he did. However, a rationalizing habit may be indicated with respect to his unfounded confidence in getting Levy and the other witnesses to understand his graffitus message, and getting Lusk to understand the Lusk letter, the import of which are quite obscure. {Refutes Mr. Norder’s charge #3.}
B. THE INDIVIDUAL IS AT LEAST AGE 18 YEARS.
>>Certainly JtR was over 17 when he committed the crimes; eyewitness accounts generally refer to a man rather over thirty.
C. THERE IS EVIDENCE OF CONDUCT DISORDER (see p. 90) WITH ONSET BEFORE AGE 15 YEARS.
>>Inapplicable to JtR, because we do not know of his adolescent years.
D. THE OCURRENCE OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY DURING THE COURSE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA OR A MANIC EPISODE.
>>Based on the case evidence, it is very unlikely that JtR was undergoing schizophrenic or manic episodes while committing the murders. If he were, we would likely see clear signs of delusive or other uncontrolled behaviors considering the detail available in the evidence, and these are conspicuously absent. On the other hand, psychopathy alone is conceptually sufficient to explain his actions.
Now Mr. Norder, if you want people to accept your three charges against me, you must state specifically how my interpretation of the evidence fails to take these matters into account. Clearly in the above I fully take up all three of your points in my cause and effect account of the empirical evidence, and thus the responsibility is on you to refute me, to show how I don’t. For each of the five specific items above that I’ve labeled as refuting your points, please show us my errors. Copy the item down and point out specifically where my treatment of the evidence is contrary to the PCL-R and the DSM-IV.
One doesn’t have to agree with A?R’s solution to the case to see that Mr. Norder is entirely incorrect in claiming, in empty and valueless cynicism, that I don’t understand psychopathy.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 7:59 pm: | |
ooo
Mr. Palmer wrote:
“Mr. Radka---How do I know the Swanson Marginalia is genuine? How can I determine this? RP”
>>This is quite a little question. If it isn’t genuine, thereby would hang a tale, wouldn’t it? If someone had forged DSS’s handwriting in his own book confirming Macnaghten’s memorandum, Ripperology would change from how we know it. Obviously a possible practical purpose for forgery would be to turn suspicion onto Kosminski, for the purpose of (or with the effect of) turning it away from someone else. But who would want to accomplish that, ostensibly over and against DSS? Or possibly would it have been done to make DSS seem reliable, or unreliable--? Or to make Macnaghten seem reliable? What sort of context are you considering here, Mr. P? I know you must have your reasons, and you have shown some secrecy on Swanson.
A?R really doesn’t separately question individual pieces of case data—it rather questions the case as a whole. A?R basically accepts the usual canon of evidence as the ground for its methodology, insofar as a whole is made of it. If it should turn out that the marginalia was falsified, A?R would be in trouble.
I understand your concern on this matter, Mr. Evans having been your mentor. He has asked Begg and Fido to have the handwriting verified on these boards.
This is how I would verify the genuineness of the marginalia also. I’d give serious consideration to your thinking concerning these matters, public or email (privacy assured.)
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 9:40 pm: | |
Glenn Andersson!
I am going to visit my Swedish relatives again on Christmas day, and have forgotten the name of the traditional Swedish folk drink made with hot red wine and spices. Do you remember the name, please? I remember the korv. Thank you.
David
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2370
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
Radka,
It's glögg! [the "ö" pronounced as the "o" in "world"]
And if it's done properly, it should -- if it's not alcohol free -- contain red wine, not common strong liquor (which some barbarians on the country-side puts into it).
The totally alcohol-free version is also quite common, although it may feel too cloying and sweet -- the strength from the red wine helps to balance the sweetness (but if common booze is used the drink becomes too strong and the taste is lost). It should be served steaming hot in small cups.
Fittings: raisins, almonds and ginger bread cookies.
Now, go and impress your Swedish friends... 
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 07, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 331
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
David,
It is the holiday season, so this warning is given with nothing but benign intentions: Be careful! Glogg can be deceptively dangerous and a little goes a long way. Obviously my hosts a few years back were "barbarians from the backwoods" because what they offered almost instantly frosted my contact lenses. Satisfying to the taste buds yet quite lethal to the other four senses. The only poition I've encountered more powerful was the punch I was offered when I walked into an Audubon post-bird-count party -- I think it was two parts naptha and one part benzene.
Anyway, David, be wary of the beverage and enjoy in moderation.
Don. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
A few years back a Norwegian friend of mine threw a Christmas party and I think she must have made some sort of variation of glogg; she had this big pot of the stuff going. Like Donald says, it tasted great but was awfully potent.
In my opinion, the best drink ever to come out of Sweden is the delicate herbal liquer, Malort. Just don't drive while you're on it. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2371
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
Don and David,
I don't know what home-made witch brew they poured down your thirsty throats, but it sure wasn't glögg is it should be done the Swedish way; if you get drunk on glögg, something is seriously wrong.
If you drink too much of the real stuff, you'll probably throw throw up because of the sugary taste long before the alcohol will even manage to set it. I can't drink more than one or two very small cups, after that it becomes too sweet and icky.
David,
Malört is great for setting the stomach right, and that's why it's a traditional item on the Christmas buffé in Sweden.
It does wonders for you, if you've eaten too much, but I can't say the bitter taste is to my liking. Actually, I think it's the taste from hell.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
Hi all,
It sounds like the kind of drink to warm you up on a cold winters day?
Jenni |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Mr. R---long before the Marginalia turned up, there was already the old Osbert Sitwell story from Noble Essences (1950) floating around in the world of Ripperlore...you'll no doubt remember it from your reading of the A-Z.....the old yarn about the Ripper's name being written in the margin of a private copy of so-and-so's memoirs, but not surviving the Blitz. (Casanova's in this case, not Anderson's). And lo, in the 1980s what happens? The Ripper's name turns up in the copy of someone's memoirs. It just always makes me a little anxious when life imitates art....
That said, I think the balance of evidence suggests that the Marginalia is genuine. The old lady that founded the Hove home is mentioned as a close friend in Anderson's son's biography. Obscure stuff. (Hmm. Did Swanson own a copy of the book?) The handwriting appears to be genuine.
Yet, there's still a couple of oddities. The use of two different tints of pencil in what proports to be a continuation of the same note is somewhat odd. This is entirely subjective, but the final line 'the suspect was Kosminski' seems a little bit forced to me. Swanson's scribbling is also more than a little indiscreet for such a discreet man.
Just a few nagging doubts, that's all. I do theorize from the position that the Marginalia is is genuine; still, i'd like to see a more thorough examination of it. RP
P.S. Being strictly objective for a moment, the classic text on document examination also warns about 'sensational revelations' in unorthodox mediums. Just a standard worry for historians. No conclusions are drawn.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 09, 2004) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 3:46 pm: | |
Ms Giordano wrote:
1. “…Let me also point out that the books cited {Lykken, Hare and Cleckley} are not scholarly texts, but popular nonfiction written for the lay person and available at most public libraries. I have read both Cleckley and Hare;in fact I've read Hare several times and have it in my collection.”
>>You are full of prunes up to your eyeballs, Ms Giordano. You FLAP YOUR LIPS AND PRODUCE HOT AIR about these authors without bothering to consult the texts themselves to see what they have in them. Each of these books represents the respective author’s considered professional opinion of the syndrome of psychopathy. Each is the primary (albeit certainly not the only) work of the respective author in the field. Lykken presents his central theory of the origin of psychopathy as the sanguine resistance to socialization on the part of the child, Hare’s book presents his top contribution to the filed, his PCL-R, and Cleckley’s is the original, formative work of the whole psychiatric profession concerning psychopathy. What an embarrassment to post that these are “popular nonfiction written for the lay person” on a public web site—how could you be interpreted as anything but a crank? If these authors have written more advanced or complete scholarly texts than the works I cited, then please cite those works here, or admit you made this whole thing up just to take a nice swift kick at someone’s backbone.
2. “Let me make the point that not all -or even most- psychopaths are killers.”
>>Your point is true but used dissonantly. You imply that since JtR was a killer, we ought to be looking for a killer, and not a psychopath that may or may not be a killer. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t make a case based on JtR’s behaviors that he was a psychopath, and solve the case based on that.
3. “Some questions and comments, Mr. Radka: What does "fronting" mean as in question 6 "fronting variously Edward Hyde and Dr. Henry Jekyll"?
>>The psychopath is projecting himself, externalizing himself. “Front” connotes “outside.” He doesn’t have an inside, so he puts himself into an available and currently appealing outside. The play was sensationally popular at the time, so that is where he puts himself. He’s using available resources to get something he wants. It is the same as a psychopath standing on a street corner in Roanoke Rapids eyeing a nice unattended red convertible, and getting the idea of how nice it would be to drive down Broadway, New York in it. Next thing he knows, he’s got the ignition hotwired and he’s heading up the interstate. The availability of resources or “opportunities” often serves to instigate psychopathic behavior.
4. “In question #7 are you saying that the killer was aware of and jealous of the play that was being done in the West End? You say that the bodies were "dislayed in the streets as theatre-goers left following the performance". Of course none of those theatre goers were anywhere near where the actual Ripper victims were displayed. What is your point here?”
>>You mean #8, not #7. I think the evidence is clear that he was aware of the play, and that the popularity of the play is responsible for the start of the Whitechapel murders. Very possibly there would have been no murders if not for the sensation made by the play. I wouldn’t think him jealous of the play, I think he simply used it, that he put the play over him like a skin or a mask, or externalized himself into its form. Then YOU MISQUOTE ME, MS GIORDANO. I did not write “the bodies were "dislayed in the streets as theatre-goers left following the performance” as you claim! I wrote that the bodies were left on public display “to co-opt the public reaction to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, currently being offered at the Lyceum Theatre, displayed in the streets as theatre-goers left following the performance.” I do not write that theatre attendees were walking out of the Lyceum Theatre to the sight of the bodies! I wrote that the play produced a reaction in the streets around the Lyceum and in the streets of Whitechapel, and that the murderer attempted to plug into, co-opt, and accentuate that reaction in the Whitechaplian streets, turning the reaction to his own purposes. He tried the same tactics with several other public reactions, also. It is similar to his manipulation of Lusk with the letter, manipulation of various Jewish groups on the night of the double event, manipulation of the crowd on the day of the Lord Mayor’s procession, and so on. He was a psychopath, a manipulator, a con man, an antisocial person, a malicious prankster, and a 30 year-old juvenile delinquent.
5. “Quesation #11- Levy was a butcher,according to the A-Z. Why would the killer communicate to him in the "language" of tailors and expect him to understand it? I question your use of the term "universal" in characterizing the meanings of the eye, the blush,etc.”
>>Maybe because he expected everyone to understand the language of tailors. The tailor was as omnipresent a person in 1888 Whitechapel as is the MacDonald’s fast-food worker today. Or perhaps he’s not sensitive enough to understand or care about Levy not being able to understand. Or perhaps Levy did understand tailoring symbols, and the murderer was aware of this. We need to consider that the murderer, pressed for time, may also have felt pressed for an idiom. Plus, as I’ve said before, we’re talking about a disordered person, a psychopath here. He doesn’t necessarily behave how you or I would. You’ve got to be JOSHING us concerning the universality of the eyes, the blush, and the wink. EVERYBODY knows the eyes UNIVERSALLY mean witnessing, the blush guilt, and the wink conspiracy, especially if the three were to be used together.
6. “Question #11 Discrete removal of the apron... Do we know that exactly half the apron was taken? It seems only recently that on this board we were talking about the piece of apron being bigger than a scrap. Where is the size of the piece of apron found in Goulston St. documented?”
>>A good-sized piece was found in Goulston Street, not a scrap. The murderer cut the apron lengthwise, right down the middle, in Mitre Square, basically halving it. This is in the good books on the case, and also on this web site. Plus YOU MISQUOTE ME AGAIN. I wrote of the discrete removal of the kidney, and the TAKING of half the apron, not “Discrete removal of the apron.”
7. “Question # 16- was there ever anyone who claimed a reward or made significant profit at the time of the killings?”
>>No reward was paid as far as I know. However, hundreds of people tried to turn in their fathers, uncles, co-workers, sons and lovers to get the reward. That’s what always happens when a reward is offered, and why Mr. Matthews was rightly against the idea.
8. “Question # 21- How would the psychopath know about the stage Irish accent? Did people of his class ever to to stage productions (aside from Jewish or Yiddish theater)?”
>>Everybody knows about lots of things where they live. I know what’s going on around me, don’t you? Thousands of people attended local theatres and music halls in 1888 Whitechapel. Aside from drinking and fornicating, what else was there to do?
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
Mr. Hamm wrote:
“And, I too will now be bowing out of this thread. It's been going nowhere for months, and I cannot foresee that changing in the near or distant future. I'm sure David won't miss me, as I tend to say nothing anyway. And though I may aim at his theory, I apparently shoot blanks. Oh well, as they say, when you hunt elephants, use elephant bullets.”
>>You’re the one who’s gong nowhere, Mr. Hamm, not this thread. You haven’t been rationally able to uphold a single point against me in—what?—somewhere near thirty long posts. You make little effort to verify what you write academically, posting even database subject headers as real verified research. You suffer from the same astonishingly callous sense of over-confidence as does your buddy Mr. Norder, who also can’t seem to keep up the discussion with me at this point and feels the need to retreat. I’ve fired better people than you two. I understand where you’re coming from, though. Both of you base your presumptions about the A?R theory on the cynical proposition that nobody is ever going to know who the Whitechapel murderer was. You pick this up uncritically from other dourly pessimistic, scornful, disparaging folks like Mr. Evans. For people like this, cynicism is like a club; clambering up on Mount Olympus, they happily wield it to bash heads in. Skepticism, suspicion and speculation running hand-in-hand take the place of reason, rationality and logic. The world is full of second-rate minds.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Sarah Long wrote:
“How dare you insult my appearance. So, I may not be some supermodel but I do not appreciate you insinuating that I am ugly or old looking. If you wish to discuss this thread then do so with people who are interested but do not stoop so low as to insult people's looks.”
>>I do not insult your looks, Sarah. I have made no reference to your appearance. Since you posted this I’ve brought up your picture for the first time, and find it quite becoming.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
Mr. O’Flaherty wrote:
"The wonderful thing that one learns when one deals, actually, with logic and philosophy is that when I have a point proven over here, the fact that that same point applies in an entirely different circumstance does not prove the error of my logic."
>>This is over little David’s head. I can’t get through it. Could you please explain in more detail, Mr. Flaherty? Thank you.
David
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 7:25 pm: | |
David,
I posted that quite awhile back. That quote to me is an example that discussion is pointless with someone who has complete conviction in their ideas and who believes they're entering into discussion with mostly second-rate minds. Unless of course, you're having fun. Alan Keyes (who I was quoting) displays that kind of supreme self-assurance, and often your posts remind me of him, politics aside.
Since the message boards were reopened almost a couple of years ago now, I've been trying to avoid insulting you, so I shouldn't have posted that quote in the first place. In fact, I apologize for it.
Dave
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 7:31 pm: | |
Mr. O'Flaherty,
Have no fear of insulting me. Go ahead and post whatever you think of my work. I'd be fascinated with what you'd have to say. I at least don't see myself as similar to Alan Keyes.
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 5:07 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.”
>>You specifically stated in your post of Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:40 pm that my annotated postings of the PCL-R on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm and of the DSM-IV on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:01 pm were full of “…all the errors and self-contradictions” that were “…the same mistakes {I’d} been making over and over,” and that you merely had to complete your editing of the recent edition of ‘Ripper Notes’ before returning to point all these errors out to us. The three errors you insisted I had been making throughout my discussion of psychopathy, and that were contained in the two posts above, were:
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.
But since then you have never posted ONE SINGLE WORD concerning these two posts of mine. You have done NOTHING to show how I fail to address your three points in my theory. I’m only asking you to follow through on what YOU YOURSELF said you’d do, I’m not “personally insisting” on anything. People realize your brand of sandbox ethics in these discussions, Mr. Norder.
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 isn’t the point at all. You said you’d explain my errors in my two postings—I’m only requiring you to follow through. And I am under no illusion that you are making my theory any more important than it is by posting here, Mr. Norder. The importance or unimportance of A?R has nothing to do with this.
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.”
>>Lying to my readers about my work to advance the popularity of your publication doesn’t do anything but demonstrate your ethical unsuitability as an Editor.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Mr. Norder wrote to Mr. Nelson:
1. “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. In fact, I'd find it difficult to believe that you could have paid any attention to the field in general and still entertain the notion that anyone might take David's theory seriously.”
>>The reason why the key figures in Ripperology have not yet commented on A?R is obvious, Mr. Norder. It is because they are more intelligent than you. Not knowing anything about psychopathy, they don’t comment on it. They wait until they learn before they make a public statement. And this is the point of A?R, to introduce psychopathy as a center to Ripperology. *** Mr. DiGrazia invited me to publish in ‘Ripper Notes’ prior to A?R. Other journals have invited me to publish on A?R. *** When you say “I'm not aware of any other published author who takes {Mr. Radka} seriously” you play a trick of language on your readers typical of your gangster’s intentions, of which you’ve provided abundant evidence on this thread. What you say is like saying “I’m not aware of there being any penguins in Nepal.” Maybe it is true you are not aware of penguins in Nepal, and maybe there aren’t any there, but these are entirely different matters than the actuality that there really aren’t any there. If you want to say that the major figures in Ripperology don’t take me seriously, then you have to cite published statements on their part that they don’t. Otherwise, what you say is nothing but baloney on your part—an attempt to mislead people by trickery of wording. *** Please, for the first time ever, point out these alleged “gaping holes in my logic” you blather about. And if you don’t, acknowledge that you can’t. *** When you say to Mr. Nelson: “I'd find it difficult to believe that you could have paid any attention to the field in general and still entertain the notion that anyone might take David's theory seriously” you speak as if “the field” were publishing sharp critiques of A?R. In fact, NO critiques of A?R have been published, by your own statement above: “…the editors of all the Ripper magazines have ignored David Radka!” Your writing is foolishly self-contradictory. The only comments about A?R have been made on this web site. There has been no comment in any other publication. Thus you LIE to your readers, Mr. Norder.
2. “And, of course, since you aren't a subscriber to Ripper Notes and the new magazine has gotten rave reviews, I can only speculate as to how you managed to form an opinion that my taking over was a mistake.”
>>There is enough evidence of your ethics on this web site to safely formulate such an opinion.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 432
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 9:23 am: | |
David, David, David...
My post of Sept. 19 (click to see) in no way promises to return and respond to your posts point by point. It says I was too busy to bother, and that most of them had already been answered anyway. Frankly, I'm always too busy now to waste my time pointing out the mistakes you made, because I (and several other people) have already done so many times, while you just go on in denial as if nobody said anything.
Penguins in Nepal? Please, David. Do you really hold out hope that someone of note in this field will out of the blue decide that your theory is worth taking notice of as something other than a joke? Do you honestly believe you were the one who introduced the concept that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath? Can you truthfully say that the only reason nobody has commented on your theory in print is that they are being uncharacteristically silent on something that might be noteworthy but want to go research psychopaths first?
Use some of that philosophy background of yours and come to terms with yourself.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
Mr R
You wrote, re my good self
"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".
Well I took your advice, and it did indeed help me to understand the workings of the physcopathic mind, you see the wife came in and caught me in front of the fire in the silk kimono(brandy in hand,) an immediately had me commited. You see I took the pledge 10 years ago, and had drank nothing stronger than lemomade during that time.
Two weeks later, I was released, but not before I had some very interesting conversations with a couple of real physcopaths in the sanatorium, so you see your advice was well founded.
But seriously, I can see the logic of the physcopathic mind whereas the physcopath would envisage a riot upon his inducing Mary Kelly to be found, in the early hours of the 9th Nov.
What I can't understand is your own logic that draws you to interpret the facts in this way
How can you be absolutely certain that this is what the killer had on his mind when he lit that clothing in the fire grate?
Your logic tells you that this is what happened, But remember, it's up to us to belive you.
Regards Cludgy
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
ooo
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “My post of Sept. 19 (click to see) in no way promises to return and respond to your posts point by point. It says I was too busy to bother, and that most of them had already been answered anyway.”
>>You mumble below the level of dignity, Mr. Norder. Unable to cherish or value truthfulness in others, you leave yourself without self-respect. For four months, you stated scores of times that The PCL-R and the DSM-IV fundamentally disproved the A?R Summary on three counts, while conniving never to post or specifically allude to one word of these documents on this web site as a specific demonstration of lack of conformity. After withstanding your barrage of lies for that long, I posted both here in full, and showed how the A?R Summary conforms to them in every detail applicable to the Whitechapel murders. (Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm and Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:01 pm.) As soon as I did so, you opportunely absented yourself from further discussions (Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:40 pm) without further comment, citing the pretext that you were too busy in the immediate present to respond. But these strategic comments on your part put you on the hook, Mr. Norder. You are required to specifically state how A?R fails to conform to the PCL-R and the DSM-IV now that they are posted here, as you claimed in over fifty posts during half a year’s time. Your allegations are abundantly documented throughout the archives. If you can support your claims against me now, do so. If you can’t, concede your allegations.
2. “Frankly, I'm always too busy now to waste my time pointing out the mistakes you made, because I (and several other people) have already done so many times, while you just go on in denial as if nobody said anything.”
>>Nobody is “always too busy.” You mutter beneath personal honor. Let me make it as easy as possible for you to respond, Mr. Norder. Let’s ask you to respond to only one of your three counts. Here is your contention, which you stated at least thirty different times on this thread:
*** That I believe psychopaths are incapable of feeling anger, whereas the PCL-R provides that they do experience anger. ***
And here is the applicable provision straight from the PCL-R itself on this topic, with my conformity to the Summary noted. Dr. Hare’s category in capitals:
“POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS
Repeatedly reacted pettily to perceived insults or slights. Killed Tabram because he felt irked that his significant other exercised her maternal authority to admit Aaron into their household—an act of emotional “displacement” frequently seen in psychopaths. Double event occasioned by John Pizer having stolen the center of attention from him. Miller’s Court affair resulted from Levy not humbly entreating him to stop murdering on behalf of the Jewish community. Responded in the classic sense of a psychopath in a short-tempered and hotheaded way to frustration and being disciplined by another person. Despite that behavior was hair-triggered, the murder scenes reflect orderliness, indicating “cold” anger.”
Now, Mr. Norder, all you’ve got to do is refute this one item. Show us how I claim that psychopaths don’t experience anger, in any way you can, that demonstrates non-conformity with the PCL-R. It ought to take a total of two minutes of your time to type out a coherent response, considering the great sweeping confidence of your long-expressed convictions. This is absolutely as simple as the matter can be made. Now, show us what you’ve got.
3. “Penguins in Nepal? Please, David. Do you really hold out hope that someone of note in this field will out of the blue decide that your theory is worth taking notice of as something other than a joke?”
>>Show us where someone worth considering, someone of note and reasonable temper, has said A?R is a joke. Do Rumbelow, Begg, Fido, Sugden, or Whittington-Egan say as much, for example? Refer to their statements specifically here, and give the citations. You claim that no one of note in the field considers A?R as anything but a joke, when in fact they do not make this comment about it. You are an openly self-serving liar, Mr. Norder, putting words in people’s mouths.
3. “Do you honestly believe you were the one who introduced the concept that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath?”
>>The concept that JtR may have been a psychopath is certainly not a new one. Cleckley, Hare, and Lykken each separately introduced this notion more than eight years before A?R. I’ve alluded to them here several times, giving them credit for the original idea. You publicly lie about me, Mr. Norder. But certainly I am the Ripperologist who first solved the case based on psychopathy as an epistemological center. If I am not, please cite fully the Ripperologist who did so prior to me. This is the only claim I’ve made on this count.
4. “Can you truthfully say that the only reason nobody has commented on your theory in print is that they are being uncharacteristically silent on something that might be noteworthy but want to go research psychopaths first?”
>>You lie about me, Mr. Norder. I offered this as one explanation, but certainly did not say or imply that it was the only reason. Let me ask you something, Mr. Norder, in all seriousness. Please cite for me examples from the writings of consequential Ripperologists wherein they comment on whether or not they agree with the writings of other consequential Ripperologists. Show us where Rumbelow says he agrees with Begg’s recent general thinking on the case, or where Sugden endorses Fido’s view concerning David Cohen. You can’t find such allusions very easily, can you? The reason is because major Ripperologists rarely do such things. It is an individual’s field; each author bellies up to the bar, plunks down his two bits, and lives with what he gets. I wouldn’t think these fellows would treat me any differently than they do one another. Short of someone producing a jar full of wombs preserved in spirits of wine out of Morris Lubnowski’s steamer trunk, I wouldn’t think we’d hear from any of them. They know I’ve put down my two bits, however, I can assure you of that.
5. “Use some of that philosophy background of yours and come to terms with yourself.”
>>Okay. Here’s what my philosophy background tells me: I’m not dealing with a critic of good faith.
|
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 356
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
It rubs the lotion on it's skin...
"Our name is legion, for we are many" |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2419
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
Radka wrote:
">>Show us where someone worth considering, someone of note and reasonable temper, has said A?R is a joke. Do Rumbelow, Begg, Fido, Sugden, or Whittington-Egan say as much, for example? Refer to their statements specifically here, and give the citations. You claim that no one of note in the field considers A?R as anything but a joke, when in fact they do not make this comment about it."
Actually, you have fallen into your own bear trap again, David. The fact that each and every one of these important researchers (among others) have NOT found it valid to even comment on your A?R theory, is the real proof of that they probably think it's garbage.
If they found it interesting enough, you would have heard about it -- believe you me.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 21, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Hey Jason,
i must have totally missed something. Whatever are you on about my friend?
Hi Glenn,
how are you?
Bye!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
This history of these message boards is odd. I've followed them for many a moon now. For the most part, they focus on the minutia of the case; going over the same strange bits of 'evidence' again & again...almost like a ritual; the strange 'event' in Berner Street, for instance, cautiously gone over again and again and again. Then, once or twice a year, some poor soul--either courageous or rash---(take your pick)--comes along and offers his or her unified theory for consideration. It's almost like a sacrifice, a burnt offering placed before the alter. In the shadows, one can see the wolves licking their chops. Invariably, they are set on; their ideas torn to shreds. I recall many such theorists who have come to these boards, some faring better than others. Ed, Simon, Ivor, Peter, Graziano, now Radka. It's a strange business.
I do like one element of Radka's theory rather well; the idea that 'what drives them' is the psychopath himself; the myth that he created in the sordid alleys of the East End both lures them on, and, at the same time, prevents them from seeing things in their proper perspective. It's not my solution, but it's an interesting notion. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
P.S. That should be 'altar', of course. No pun intended. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Checkable Details for the AR theory:
1) find out what Epistemological means
2)Review the works of psychologists Cleckley, Hare and Lykken to determine if the actions of JTR fit their definitions of a psychopath
3) Review other psychologists writings in case the three listed above are not mainstream or would not be universally agreed with.
4)See if we can determine when various people moved into and out of the Kosminski, Cohen, Lubnowski residence using extant records. Check if any member of these three families other than Aaron ever had a run in with the police or was treated for some form of mental illness.
5) Check such biographical details of the three families as may be found to get any scrap of information about members. (Diaries, newspaper accounts, records in the local synagogue, old letters)
6)Who first proposed a reward according to government records. Who agitated vigorously for it?
7) Check books on tailoring to see what the upside down V meant and other symbols
8) Check to see if any of the members of the three families were involved in tailoring. (Did tailors have a union, organization or guild?)
8) See if Levy left any diaries, letters, etc. What stories have come down in his family?
9) See if the three families have descendants alive today. Have any stories come down?
10)Check to find out if the cry of "Lipski" in 1888 London meant, "be quiet or you will bring the Gentiles down on us" (A book on the Lipski murder?)
11)Research bilateral language disorder
12) Look at Kosminski's committal papers |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
Diana,
You can rest assured that most of these details are unnecessary to check. You see, Dan Norder, the editor of Ripper Notes, has already completed 2) and 3) on your checklist above and concluded that the entire AR theory is untenable. Just ask him. He will also tell you who the "experts" are that he consulted to base this verdict on. And also that David's work will never, ever appear in a published journal, etc., etc... case closed. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 441
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:29 pm: | |
Hi R.J.,
Yeah, and odd how most of those people who got crucified for posting their theories were ones who decided to go into personal attacks instead of rational discussion and ended up getting banned (as David almost has been as several occasions). Lots of people present theories here, only the ones who refuse to debate the logic end up being ridiculed as badly as those people were.
Hi Diana,
Actually, the problem here is that most of what David claims simply cannot be checked because of the way David rationalizes things.
For example, the people who use the term "Juwes" as an abbreviation for a Christian youth group say it wasn't coined until the 1960s. David says that they are wrong, the killer obviously either knew of the term or just created it on the spot in his mind. You can't check what was in his hypothetical killer's head. The part that's checked already shows him wrong, and the rest of it so illogical that it shouldn't be considered.
Ditto for the facial mutilations being tailor's symbols. David started out claiming they were specific symbols with specific meanings, but then admitted he didn't find them in a book but invented them up himself in his own head and just assumes the killer did so as well to mean the exact same things. So we can check and recheck and it all comes down to some piece of fiction David came up with and claims the killer did as well yet nobody else ever came up with. (Of course then David avoids the obvious implications behind the concept that this hypothetical psychopath's mental process works the same as David's own brain does.)
The same goes for just about everything David has claimed. What he says about psychopaths contradicts what the leading experts say, so he comes up with his own checklist of what *he* considers to be psychopathic traits, even though he has no background in the field and people who do say he's nuts.
The problem with your approach, Diana, is you are assuming that all theories are equally valid unless proven wrong. But you can't prove a negative, because there is always room for someone to try to rationalize evidence against his or her theory away with some highly unlikely but unprovable point. Just look at the soundly destroyed Royal Conspiracy, with a supposed Catholic marriage with no Catholics in it, a killer who was proven to be elsewhere, and other facts that are just plain wrong. Yet some people still cling desperately on, just as David is doing here.
What we should do instead is ask for people with theories to provide their own evidence, real solid evidence, instead of flimsy hypotheticals and bizarre notions. Some authors try, then come to a point where no evidence remains to go any farther and admit that. Others, the vast majority I'd say, have convinced themselves and don't mind twisting things all over the place of even falsifying evidence (presenting imaginary tailor's symbols as if they were real, for instance, but the idea that the word "Juwes" is Masonic term is another famous one). These people try to make their cases up out of nothing and then attack people who dare to point out the parts that are wrong. These people should be dismissed as cranks -- as they have been these days in this field -- until such time as they come back with real evidence and a willingness to discuss things rationally.
Hi Scott,
You know, the funny thing is you were trying to be sarcastic, and yet it was the only sensible thing you've said on this thread.
I think your major problem here is you have a suspect or family in mind and don't like people criticizing David's theory because he happens to share some of the same ideas. The problem is that David's theory itself is illogical claptrap. One can throw out a ridiculous argument (as David's clearly is) without throwing out a suspect. For example, if I were to say that the sky is blue because it leeches the ink out of old newspapers, that argument is clearly nuts, and can be proven so (it was blue before newspapers were around, etc.). But that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.
Of course we don't know who the Ripper was, but his real identity remains whether or not David makes up some bizarre egotistical fantasy he invented up. By all means, Scott, if you think he have a good theory, run with it, but you don't do yourself any service by linking yourself to someone who is the laughing stock of the field.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Dan, What did you find when you checked out those psycho guys? |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 447
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
Well, it's been covered extensively several months back (and thus buried deep in the bowels of A?R archive hell), but the upshot is that this hypothetical unnamed killer David talks about in his theory features some psychopathic traits and some paranoid schizophrenic traits, but mostly just mustache-twirling cartoon villain traits.
Of course what's even more problematic for David is that even if you accept his layman's understanding of psychopathy as 100% accurate, the points in his dissertation still don't come anywhere near close to following logically from the premise. A?R is more like a fever-induced bad dream than a coherent theory, which makes it simple for David to tack something on or leave something off when arguing about it, because there's no connection between any of the parts except for his imagination and ego.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hollow words from a hollow editor. Notice, still no identification of the so-called "experts" he supposedly consulted. |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 127
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Scott,
Wasn't that a bit uncalled for?
Dan does his best, that I can account for.
Bestest,
Lyn |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2431
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Mr Nelson's remark was most certainly uncalled for.
I can't say I agree that often with Dan Norder (apart from on this thread and maybe some other), but from what I've seen so far, he has made an excellent job with Ripper Notes. As far as I am concerned I see no reason to jump down on his position as editor -- on the contrary, I think he's done wonders with the magazine.
Do I maybe detect a bit of distasteful jealousy on Mr Nelson's part...?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 133
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
Yes, I suspect you do Glenn.
Merry Christmas!
Lyn
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
David Radka in print commenting on his solution can be found in the journal you now edit: RN, vol. 4, no. 1 July 2002, page 28.
So the Ripper as a psychopath is untenable? Then why did an author I respect quite a bit list, as the number one possible motive and reasons for the murders, a psychopath. And where did this piece appear? You guessed it. Ripper Notes, vol. 4, no. 2, October 2002, page 13.
(Message edited by Snelson on December 23, 2004) |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
And another thing, why do posters trash David's solution, but then we suddenly get these other threads that start to pop up, like Goulston Street Graffito and Psychopathology, Jack the Firestarter, Psychopath or Sociopath and Jack and his Symbolic Communication??
Maybe some of his ideas are subconsciously penetrating the gray matter of readers, but of course, even if it were to dawn on them that this may be the case, they would never admit it. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 448
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Scott,
"David Radka in print commenting on his solution can be found in the journal you now edit: RN, vol. 4, no. 1 July 2002, page 28."
That's part of an article by Tim Mosley quoting lots of short posts from the Casebook. David wasn't commenting on his solution, he was just claiming to have one and didn't really say much about it at all. The quote was being used to demonstrate Tim's point that lots of people think they know the type of person the Ripper was.
Its mention there in no way is an endorsement of Radka's theory at all, especially since he hadn't even released it at that point. In fact, in later columns Tim openly ridiculed David. He has also now criticized David's theory since the A?R dissertation was posted here. That was in public where anyone could read it (and I know David saw it, because he made responses to it here in this thread) so I'm not betraying any trust by mentioning it here.
"So the Ripper as a psychopath is untenable?"
No, actually. I lean toward the idea that he was, but I'm open to other possibilities. If you'd read this thread or other posts here you'd know that.
What's untenable are David's claims of how psychopaths act and the concept that if the Ripper were a psychopath then the A?R theory is the only logical conclusion.
"Then why did an author I respect quite a bit [...]"
That was another article by Tim. You respect him so much that you missed when he very clearly in later columns and elsewhere ridiculed David as a kook?
If that's the best you can do to try to show support in this field for David, it's pretty clear that he doesn't really have any worth speaking of.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
I know Tom Mosely ridiculed David on the forums site, along with you and everyone else when David couldn't defend himself there. But you did notice that Tim shortly afterwards stopped. In fact, he later told me that he thought David was an "out of the box" thinker. I don't know if Tim had a change of heart or if he still feels that David is wrong, probably the latter, but at least Tim had the guts to acknowledge David's unique case approach.
You have to learn to be more objective if you are to survive for very long editing a Journal like RN. But I predict it won't last very long with you as the editor unless you lighten up.
Oh, about those "experts" on psychopaths you consulted, again who were they and what did they say? |
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 357
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
"And another thing, why do posters trash David's solution, but then we suddenly get these other threads that start to pop up, like Goulston Street Graffito and Psychopathology, Jack the Firestarter, Psychopath or Sociopath and Jack and his Symbolic Communication??
Maybe some of his ideas are subconsciously penetrating the gray matter of readers, but of course, even if it were to dawn on them that this may be the case, they would never admit it."
No, that would be because trying to reason with David is like trying to get blood from a turnip. Thus trying to discuss something he doesn't agree with becomes an exercise in who has the bigger internet penis. Also, shortly after this thread was created it turned into crap. I should know, I contributed to said crap, as did you. By creating other threads, these issues are resolved and people who can read english and comprehend sentence structure can get together and share ideas that are in direct contrast to Herr David's views with out being forced to play silly games.
Or else it gets the hose again....
Legion
"Our name is legion, for we are many" |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 449
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:21 pm: | |
Scott,
Are you seriously suggesting that people are only talking about psychopaths, the graffiti, whether the Ripper left any messages, etc. because of David? That's ridiculous. These things were topics of conversation here long before he said word one about any of them. The threads you mentioned to have nothing to do with his theories.
Tim has posted remarks making fun of A?R as recently as two days ago, by the way.
If you want to know about what the experts say about psychopaths, it was discussed in great detail months ago on this very thread. There's only so many times I can repeat the same information.
As far as the rest of your comments go, you should worry about your own objectivity first, I think. Your opinions about the magazine and my actions are pretty clearly biased.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
You know you're right, Dan. I take back everything I've written. I may even re-subscribe to RN again. Who knows, maybe even Jason Scott Mullins would contribute a piece to the journal. Hope of that happening would be well worth the price of a year's subscription.
Absolutely no sarcasm intended.
 |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
The schitzophrenic nature of Ripper Studies interests me. It both fluants and condemns its own eccentricity. The crack-pot is a sort of mascot, but one who is constantly kicked about the heels. Even the most prestigious journal, the Ripperologist names itself after Colin Wilson's tongue-in-cheek term---synonymous with crack-pot. It's an odd business, interesting as hell. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Hey RJ
who is this 'Colin Wilson' fellow with 'his tongue up his cheek'?
I always thought it was up his asp.
But what do I know?
|
N. Statter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:38 pm: | |
This whole debate is so confusing. Does Radka really claim to have come up with the original idea that the Ripper was a psychopath? If so he is sadly wrong - it was suggested tens of years ago. |
Mort Goldman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:09 pm: | |
Interesting comments...
Mr.Radka says Mr. Norder said...."You claim that no one of note in the field considers A?R as anything but a joke, when in fact they do not make this comment about it."
However,Mr. Norder did not say that.
He said...."Please, David. Do you really hold out hope that someone of note in this field will out of the blue decide that your theory is worth taking notice of as something other than a joke?”
There is a significant difference in what Mr. Norder said and what Mr. Radka says he said.
I'd wager ALL the major researchers,authors,and aficinados of the Jack The Ripper murders, with the obvious exception of Mr. Andersson, have perused the content of Mr.Radka's ideas on these boards.
Their absence...their total absence...after 1100 posts speaks volumes.
Nighty night...... |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:12 pm: | |
Glenn Andersson!
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
What does this mean? Does it refer to me? What are the pegs? Who is Papa Lazarou?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2479
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
David Radka,
I was just about to find something new to put down as a signature.
No need to get paranoid. I am not trying to sell you any pegs (you have to ask the Brits about that, I must admit I am not sure what pegs means).
Papa Lazarou is not you, but a character with a painted face and running a travelling circus show in a British comedy show called The League of Gentlemen -- a show so sick and twisted that it almost makes Monthy Python look like a documentary. He collects wives by kidnapping them, he has psychic powers and he calls everyone Dave -- men and women. He says all kinds of meaningless, corny stuff, and "Want to buy some pegs, Dave?" is one of them. Just another example of twisted English humour. And mine, I suppose...
So no, you're in the clear, David...
All the best
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
