|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3976
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 1:32 pm: | 
|
OK, Dan.
You got me there. That sentence was expressed badly, I admit. You are perfectly right - he was declared legally insane, and it is questionable if he's the best example in this argument.
Whether one agrees with the conclusion of him being sane or not, is another question, though; I have doubts about it (which is my priviligue)and I am not the only one. But you're right - I should have chosen a more clear-cut example.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
I'm still looking at the general situation regarding the murder of women in the East End of London during the LVP, and it will probably be some time before I can post the results.
However here are a few ground rules for you:
1/
Almost all murders of women are of a domestic nature and take place indoors.
2/
Almost all murders of women of a domestic nature do not include mutilation of the victim.
3/
Almost all murders of women that take place outdoors are 'stranger' crimes.
Of course there are variants - and these are the really interesting cases which I'm still looking at.
Once complete I will post the results on a new thread. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2338
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
This looks like it could be very helpful research
and will possibly help us towards a better understanding of the murder of Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Stride in particular.Also perhaps Frances Coles and others who may be slightly peripheral to the case.
Thanks
Natalie |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3977
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Do you intend to publish your research, if not in form of a book then at least as some kind of dissertation on the web? I mean, when you are ready?
I agree with Natalie; I think it would be valuable and a great contribution, since those aspects are not investigated to the extent it should be.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4837
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Hi AP
How many cases of urban outdoor mutilation have you found pre-1888?
Robert |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 253
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I'm out of the debate, but factual misconceptions is fair game, I hope?
Why I have not answered your question about Hadden Clark? Well, actually I have. I quote:
"There is no need to address your example on schizo killers. I stated:" bla...bla...bla. Read what I wrote.
Again, maybe I'm not clear enough. Let me try to be blunt about it. Your example is absolutely irrelevant. It proves that some serial killers are schizophrenic. I have said I don't dispute that. If I can show that one serial killer liked to dress as a clown, would that have any bearing whatsoever on what we might think about Jack?
I hope not. I have said time and time again that alternative scenarios is not an argument per se. Discredit my notion about Jack having psychopathic traits all you like. But "proving" that there are also schizophrenic murderers simply does not do that.
Had "almost all" serial killers been schizophrenic, then you would have made a point.
As I see it, that argument is totally irrelevant. And it only brings the debate into a direction of your design, namely AWAY from the issue at hand.
I cannot do anything but agree that schizoid killers exist, and it may appear that you take a point. You don't. As I said, it is irrelevant unless it can be linked to Jack in any way.
Maybe you CAN link that to Jack. But so far I see no movement in that direction, and have to conclude that this is an argument that you choose to use to derail the debate.
Do I demand people to be mind readers? I though I just said that neither of us are, and that is how some misconceptions do occur. Yes, I make mistakes to, Glenn, and I apologize for them when I realize I do. And I'm glad when other people do the same for me. It actually makes me happy.
Sometimes this is necessary because of the form of this forum. People misunderstand eachother all the time in real life. In conversation most such mistakes are cleared near instantly. Here, we need to probe the other persons intention with a written post, and minutes, even hours may pass. Obviously mistakes occur.
"But you (and some others) are still caught up with the incorrect idea that an insane person is insane or ill all the time. They are not."
No. And especially not minutes before strangling and killing their victim? After the entrapment? Tell, me, when does the abnormal behaviour start? The second a killer kills? This makes no sense.
I can see Jack approaching his victims absolutely without any mental illness whatsoever. Really. Thinking that he is just a John. And suddenly, "insanity" sets in..lucky to have brought the knife.. Oops there was that urge again...
No, I was kidding. I don't see it happen that way.
You still think a killer that has entrapped his victim, even started mutilation, and appear perfectly "normal" and charming to two police officers, even managing to talk his way out of an extremely dangerous situation..is only behaving "normally"..no deceit involved?
I'm not the only one to see psychopathic behaviour patterns in Dahmer. But maybe you are right, maybe he was just acting in his "normal" mode at that time.
I'm amazed.
Oops, I think I'm arguing again. Better stop.
BTW, AP, You know you're still my foxy fox!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 22, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3978
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Helge,
I was trying to produce a discussion on factual grounds, but everytime I do that, it just seems like it's to no avail and every argument gets ridiculed and not taken seriously.
What is the point of posting stuff if you find it 'irrelevant'?
With Clark, I was trying to show that a killer diagnosed with paranoid scizofrenia is perfectly capable of eluding the police and commit a series of crimes - suffering from a psychotic illness, not taking his medication -- and without being a psychopath. But more importantly - that a disorganized/scchizofenic/irrational killer can have psychopathic/organized traits and behaviout without BEING a psychopath. Therefore the idea of Jack the Ripper being a psychopath might in fact be over-rated.
And you call it irrelevant?
Interesting argumentation.
I see now that this is a complete waste of time and effort, and life is short. Besides, it's destroying this thread - the point, I believe, was lost long ago. And I think very few besides ourselves find this debating amusing.
I am hereby out of this discussion. Congratulations - the ballpark is all yours.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Thanks folks
when, and if ever, I get through it, I'll just start a thread for discussion.
Such urban mutilation is there, Robert - pre-1888 - but mostly in association with the murder of very young girls; and often such crimes have their sad basis in either rape or the strange desire of a mother to rid herself of an unwanted daughter.
Of course we do have the spectacular mutilation of Elizabeth Jackson in 1887, which is slightly out of whack with everything else going on.
In fact Elizabeth Jackson is a riveting victim as she was murdered more times than I care to mention.
She was murdered and disfigured Oct. 1885; poisoned Dec. 1885; and then finally cut to ribbons in 1887, but was still keen to climb over the eight foot fence by Cannon Row and bunker down in the New Scotland Yard for the night.
Anyways, I'm still looking.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 741
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
I hope you’re not looking for another hobby too seriously already – it would be sad to see you leave. And apology accepted. I’m glad the sky has cleared a bit.
“ You find it more likely that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. Maybe. However, these things are complicated, and even a paranoid schizophrenic may have some psychopathic tendencies.
I'm not so hung up on diagnosis here (as we simply will never be sure), and I actually never said he was a fully fledged psychopath.
All I'm saying is that I think it seems like he could have shared some psychopathic traits.”
Yes, until someone puts forth information that would lead me in another direction, I think it more likely that he was a paranoid schizophrenic and I don’t think he was a full-fledged psychopath, which I know you never said. But I’m not hung up on that idea either, because as you say these things are complicated – certainly in a case that’s over a century old.
Like I said, there’s a good possibility that the Ripper possessed some psychopathic traits. Maybe he was more like Andrei Chikatilo, who, if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t a (full-fledged) psychopath nor a paranoid schizophrenic. If I remember correctly, he did suffer from a sexual disfunction. So, who knows? - I certainly don’t.
I think we agree more than you might have thought. The only thing I didn’t agree with is the deductions you made about the Ripper’s psychopathic traits. IMHO I don’t think we can make such deductions based on what we know. But – that’s just what I think.
“To me it sounded like all serial killers were automatically considered schizophrenic. I misunderstood Frank there, I guess.”
Just to set the record straight (and there’s no anger whatsoever in my tone here) you misunderstood me. I don’t believe I could ever state such a thing, because that’s really nonsense. Most serial killers suffer from personality disorders rather than mental diseases. And, like you wrote in that quote, only a small percentage of the people suffering from schizophrenia is dangerous and violent to others.
So, returning to the thread’s topic, if we follow the statistics Jack would probably be a psychopath.
Anyway Helge, I hope you stick around.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 742
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
“Very few here throws up suggestions 'out of the blue' and certainly not Frank.”
Tak for the compliment, Glenn!
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3979
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Tjena Frank,
I must say, a very good post as usual. I can agree with practically everything in it - also the statistical stuff.
By the way - are you coming to the Brighton Conference?
It would be great if you showed up, or can't you get off from work?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 254
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 2:57 am: |
|
Thanks Frank.
Unfortunately I don't really feel like debating anything for a long while..
But you're a good man in my book, if that counts for anything!
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:16 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
Be that as it may,it remains a fact that most of the JtR type killings which we read about in the press-horrific,motiveless, stabbings and mutilations,sometimes even on innocent passers by,
are carried out by individuals suffering a psychotic episode to do with their paranoia and almost never by a person who could be termed a psycopath.
If this applied to Jack, when exactly would these psychotic episodes have begun and ended, in terms of the murder nights? And what would have set each one off - some cerebral change, unconnected with his immediate surroundings and situation? Or the solicitations of a prostitute, while he happened to be wandering the Whitechapel streets in the early hours? Or perhaps when she had taken him somewhere private and demanded money? Or would it have been a combination of internal and external circumstances?
Hi Glenn, All,
I have a question regarding the recent arguments for MJK's murder being a domestic.
It is argued that the mutilations (including facial) appear to have been carried out by someone who knew Mary well, and who therefore needed to:
a) depersonalise her
b) make her hard to identify (despite leaving her in her own room)
c) make it look like the ripper's work
But are these three compatible? I'd say a) and b) are, and possibly b) and c).
But what about a) and c)?
Would it be an either/or situation?
Imagine if no ripper crimes had happened when someone wanted Mary dead. c) would obviously not apply, but a) and b) would remain unaffected presumably, and would depend on the individual concerned.
All three would be methods of self-preservation; the third only being an option because, by happy coincidence, a mutilating serial killer of prostitutes had been doing the rounds in the immediate area just when Mary's killer wanted to get rid.
I see option a) as a highly emotional and instinctive response to having just taken the life of someone close - a way of preserving the killer's mental state.
Option c), however, seems like a very different animal to me; a cold-blooded and calculated job of copying (even improving on) Jack's methods, so the killer can preserve his physical self and escape the rope.
Could these be two sides of the same man - a man who was not the ripper?
Or do you have to choose between a) and c), if you want to run with the domestic killer theory?
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3981
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
This should probably belong to one of the Barnett copy-cat thread, but anyway.
A very interesting question indeed, although any answer of course has to be a result of speculation on our part as well as empirical knowledge from other cases. It is certainly food for thoughts.
True, (a: dehumanisation) is an act usually based on emotional and psychological grounds.
While b) and c) might be interpreted as actions done with a certain purpose in mind.
So therefore combining a) with the other two might appear difficult. I am not so sure, though, and from reading aboyút similar cases, this appears to be a deceitful interpretation.
From what I've read about similar cases, they are mostly done in a state of temporary psychosis on the killer's part - brought on by rage, jealousy, sexual frustration etc. - that is a). This can neither be ruled out in the situation where a another killer's work is 'copied'.
The mistake we make here is to think of 'copying' as something constructed from thorough planning, indicating coolness and cunning.
I think it was one poster here, who pointed out, that we shouldn't think of 'copy-cat' in such a way in cases like these. I think 'inspiration' (more or less deliberate) is a better word, and there is a difference, since these murders often are unplanned and performed as a spur-of-a-moment thing. So by 'copying' one should rather see it as an attempt to do something in sheer desperation in order to try to hide the crime while the killer is in an abnormal state of mind and maybe also suffering from temporary psychosis. Which is why these murders often appear particularly gruesome and also why we can't expect them to be close copies of the original killings it may have been inspired of. Which is also why the effort mostly is unsuccesful.
So in these cases we should forget the common notion of a copy-cat who is planning the murder way ahead and is reading up on every detail of other murders - if that was the case, we would be talking of a more professional murderer, while it in these cases often are amateurs and inexperienced people involved.
What is relevant here, is the idea about someone who does something without planning but instead in emotional affect, acting out of desperation, with the context of the serial murders somewhere in the back of his head.
Therefore I don't necessarily see a) the work of a different 'animal' than b) and c).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 847
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Not that this has anything to do with anything (not that much of anything here does), but what possible arguments are there to try to claim that Dahmer was insane? He doesn't match any of the criteria. He knew what he was doing, he did it anyway, he repeated it, and he covered it up. There's no indication whatsoever that he either had an "irresistible impulse" of emotion that took over (typically only for temporary insanity pleas) or that he could not tell right from wrong. Yes, what he did was quite depraved and beyond the imagination of most people, but he knew what he was doing and had control of himself, sad as that may be.
I know a lot of laymen get confused on the whole concept of what insanity means, but there are very specific criteria that need to be met. Dahmer wasn't even close. The only reason anyone ever even tried to say otherwise was because his defense team needed to try something, and with all the evidence against him that was their only possible legal argument.
We can sit here and try to debate lots of topics until our faces turn blue, but if we are ever going to get anywhere we have to stick with the actual definitions of words instead of making up alternative ones as we go along just to try to fit whatever it is we are arguing.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3982
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Please Dan,
Drop it. I just said above that it was a bad example to bring Dahmer up. And especially to refer to the 'legal definition' (which was a mistake). What more do you want?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 848
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
What more do I want? Well, it would be nice that when you are wrong that you admit you are actually wrong and leave it at that. Instead you claimed that the diagnosis is somehow in doubt because you and an unspecified number of other people with unknown qualifications refuse to believe it without giving any sort of rational reason why anyone would dispute it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2344
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
If we stick to the cases of those individuals
who have a mental breakdown because of schizophrenia or Manic Depression a possible and frequent reason for breakdown is stress.
Nobody knows quite how many people there are or have been who have managed to avoid breakdown
through finding a suitable modus vivendi.I have seen it written in medical texts that whenever a person is working at something rather solitary
and well below their known ability level[known from exam records /university records etc] or known because ,when conversed with are working well below their ability level,then its reasonable to suspect a schizoid personality.Examples given I remember were of an elevator attendant in a hotel and of a night watchman- both of whom were able to discuss stuff like the theory of relativity or the composition of the atomic bomb.These individuals were quoted as having found a lifestyle that didnt aggravate the balance of their delicate mental stability and so were able to "tick over" and "dream their dreams" while pushing elevator buttons or on duty at night.
In the case of Montague Druitt who MAY have inherited his mother"s illness of paranoid schizophrenia[it is most often an "inherited"illness] then he may have ticked over reasonably well while there were no stressful demands made on him such as the "family illness" of depression/suicide appearing in his mother and necessitating her spending the rest of her days in an asylum.
I pause here because Mrs Druitt had a fairly "classical" paranoid symptom ie that of believing people were trying to "electrocute" her-but this could easily be substituted for her believing people were" out to poison" her[like Cutbush and his Uncle Charles Cutbush believed]or even more usually -as in Kosminski"s case- they "hear voices"- and actually experience being "informed" by an outside power/voice to perform certain acts, some of which can involve the killing or the extermination of certain human beings.Some individuals experiencing these "command voices" however believe they are being "commanded" to carry out completely harmless activities or really heroic activities such as Joan of Arc did - by no means all those suffering from "hearing vices" are violent or likely to attack others.
Breakdown then usually coincides with pressure and stress /often from within the family situation but sometimes from the work situation.
It occurs at certain ages far more frequently than others-Druitt"s age making him a prime candidate.
The other illness which produces psychotic breakdown is manic depression.In America and probably over here it is more frequently referred to by other names but here again Druitt could have been suffering from this mental illness rather than the illness that his mother appears to have had, in that he became so depressed and took his own life-sadly very common when this illness is left untreated.
So to summarise:Both these illnesses appear to be due to an inherited genetic tendency but both can ,it is believed by many doctors, become activated by excessive stress, especially family stress.
Finally I am not a doctor or mental health worker,though I have been engaged in mental health work briefly in the past and attended mental health seminars and read recommended medical texts on the subject also at that time.
I have also conversed extensively with my mother who ,as I stated earlier, worked for sixteen years as an Art Therapist in a big Hospital for such mental illnesses in North West England.
Terminology and medical opinion have changed since then and diagnosis and medication have improved.Both illnesses are baffling in their complexity and absolutely impossible to define here in any depth-doctors still dispute for example how much is nature how much nurture.Also how best to treat-an environment that allows each individual to find their "modus vivendi"or the drug therapy most frequently given out in our hospitals.
Anyway,for what its worth this is perhaps a "starter"....
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 743
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Tjena Glenn,
Thanks for another compliment, my Swedish friend!
I’m afraid I will not be coming to the Brighton Conference. I would have liked to very much, though, but I’m going on a bit of an expensive holiday later in October (Peru) and I’m going to have my bathroom and toilet redone, which leaves me too little financial room to come this year. But hopefully I'll be able to come the next time - I intend to, anyway.
Vi ses,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 744
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
(Hope you're still here to read this.)
Well, then just know that you’re welcome whenever you feel like debating again. And thank you for the compliment as well!
If I had known the Norwegian version of ‘See you’ I would have ended with that, but since I don’t, I’ll just say:
Tot ziens! (which is Dutch)
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 255
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Tot ziens! will do very nicely, Frank 
Vi sees!
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3986
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Aaaaah, Frank!
What a bummer. Oh well, with such a trip ahead of you and having the bathroom redone, I can certainly understand if it puts some strain on the check book.
Too bad, though, but I guess there'll be other opportunities.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
Many thanks for your post.
I was hoping, however, to get something more specifically related to the murder nights and what would have kicked off the psychotic episodes that each led to the murder and mutilation of another prostitute in the early hours.
Are you thinking that someone like Druitt, already in a state of stress, went wandering the streets, and that being approached by a prostitute increased his stress to the point of no return?
Druitt was not a stupid man, and after the first time, you'd think he'd have given the Whitechapel streets at night a wide berth - unless he found an escape in the terrible violence, which the trophy-taking might well suggest.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Glenn, may I twiddle your 'tache in Brighton?
(Message edited by caz on August 24, 2005) |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2875
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
Better pack the old moustache wax then Caz!!!!.....or failing that Pritt Stick works really well!!!!
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2346
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Caz,
Lets take an example of a "Command Voice" Druitt might have been hearing.
Say that around the time of these Whitechapel murders, Druitt believes he is "under orders"[from an outside power]to murder and perform bizarre mutilations on prostitutes as for example he thinks is instructed in a certain book of the Old Testament.He knows the order these "operations" must take-he has to murder them first,then mutilate them, then arrange the innards over or around the shoulders etc etc.In some he has to do this in another he has to take a kidney away and eat it.In the case of Mary Kelly he has been "ordered" to burn or "eat" her heart.He obeys the orders as he feels he has no choice.
And no Caz, this would not require a nightly "trigger"-not at all,for he is already in a state of psychosis.It is all part of his twisted thinking,part of the "project" of his particular delusion lasting as long as the particular episode of psychosis lasts-a week,two weeks,a month, six months or possibly until the psychosis "burns itself out".
This illness baffles doctors today in terms of predictability
of attacks,duration etc but once paranoia has set in,which has the sufferer convinced that others are "out to get "them,this can be a very hard delusion to shift and even when the sufferer is "in remission" thought processes can remain strange and different from the average.
But no a particular "trigger for each event would not have been required-just a psychotic mindset.
This is all so hypothetical though as none of us can be sure what was the matter with Montague Druitt or why he committed suicide.
He may have been suffering a clinical depression or family/work induced stresses that overwhelmed him and produced unbearable anxiety/sleeplessness etc to the point he decided to take his own life- or he may have been right when he thought he was going "like mother"-she went insane/psychotic and seems to have stayed that way -but who knows?
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 745
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Hi Caz, Natalie,
I agree with Natalie here in that if the Ripper suffered from schizophrenia, he was in the psychotic phase, as I believe it's called (as opposed to the passive phase - don't know if that's the correct term in English), during the whole of the period he killed.
I'm just thinking aloud here, but I can imagine that if the Ripper was able to control himself to some extent, he could go out on certain nights with murder on his mind, search for a suitable prostitute to kill and kill her if he thought the spot she took him to was suitable.
If, on the other hand, he would not be able to control himself much or at all, the murders would have been impulsive acts, possibly triggered by something the prostitutes said or did on the spot. From what I know about him (which is not a whole lot), Thomas Cutbush seems to fall into the latter category.
Even though I think he came close to a raving lunatic, Richard Trenton Chase doesn't seem to have killed as impulsively as one perhaps might have expected. He was looking for victims by randomly trying house doors, if I remember correctly.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2350
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
Yes,I tend to see Thomas Cutbush as a volatile
man capable of murderous assault as in the case of the aged fellow employee he threw down stairs and left for dead just for laughing at his vanity.I think if he had encountered an "unfortunate" at an opportune moment who he thought may have given him syphilis he would have been equally capable of murderous assault. We know he was a deeply paranoid young man,who was suspicious of anyone he had "health" difficulties with-doctors in particular but capable too of harbouring dangerous resentments surely about
anyone from the "unfortunate"class that he may have suspected giving him venereal disease. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 746
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Thanks for that info, Natalie!
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
Hi Nats, Frank,
Many thanks for your insights.
It does sound possible that Jack had a murderous psychotic episode lasting a few weeks in the latter half of 1888.
Could this epsiode have ceased as abruptly as it began, only to be replaced at a later date by one that, say, involved orders simply to stab ladies in the behind? Would he recall his previous epsiode, if vaguely, as though it had happened to someone else or a lifetime ago? Or would it be completely blotted out, overtaken by the compulsions of his latest episode?
Love,
Caz
X |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2360
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Caz,
The answer to that is, Yes it could.If Thomas Cutbush
was Jack and was angry and paranoid about an East End prostitute ,in particular who he thought had infected him with syphilis and "unfortunates"in general who he believed spread such diseases
then its quite possible he was out every night on
such a murder spree.
I doubt he would have required "voices" to direct his anger and hatred .
Actually no one could ever vouch for what Thomas Cutbush was doing those nights except that he was out until dawn and returned covered in "mud"[mud .. er....?]-to the consternation of his Mother,his Aunt and probably Uncle Charles -unless Uncle Charles was mudding himself up too!
If Cutbush was the Whitechapel murderer then his frantic mother and aunt and maybe Uncle Charles [if he wasnt on a bender of his own at that time] might well have guessed this and had him "put away" in some quiet institution that contained a few strong straight jackets and
where he could do no harm for a few years.Somewhere like Hove perhaps....?
Two weeks and five days after the murder of Francis Coles or as I prefer to see it two days after the dropping of charges against Sadler ,Frances Coles"s man friend, Thomas Cutbush was sectioned and subsequently sent to Broadmoor where he spent the remainder of his life.
Natalie
|
David Radka
Police Constable
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 5
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Hi Nat,
I think you are very pretty. The problem is that your Profile picture has the background illuminated, but your whole face in shadow! Please scan in a photo doing justice to your beautiful face shining forth.
David
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:46 pm: |
|
Okay gang...
There is a lot of arguing about the Ripper having Paranoid Schizophrenia or even really being insane. Normally I cannot be counted on as being a voice of reason, yet I will try to be one for a brief time. Schizophrenia can't be diagnosed from the condition of a handful of victims. As I said somewhere else, perhaps in a different life, anything beyond the bare facts is just speculation and enjoyable chewing of the fat, and really should remain that lest we have to endure more Maybrick diaries and Royal conspiracies. It is great fun to postulate, and even more fun to deconstruct others' grand ideas, but the alteration of reality to add substance to one's theories has to be admitted as speculative fiction and nothing more. Maybe a careful sifting of the known facts can yield some real insight for us.
I am only a beginner on the path to madness that seems to be ripperology. Must I bare my throat to the savage left to right cuts of all you expert and inexpert theorists who would condemn me for not always being in agreement? As Scrooge said (paraphrazed): "Of all the spirits it is you I fear most."
Woe is me.
Mike |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2881
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Mike,
path to madness, you sum it up well.
I wouldn't condemn you for not being in agreement personally.
We're alright really, honestly
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2367
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Hi David,
Well the illumination/shadow you refer to is probably concealing all those little lines around my eyes-otherwise known as wrinkles!
But thanks for the sweet words-its time to update the profile photo anyway which I will do in the next few weeks!
Natalie |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page