|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 651
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 5:21 pm: |       |
AP!
"Someone slightly positive about my reasoning? This I am not used to."
Well, there's a first time for everything. May not be such a good idea to get that used to it either after all... 
I must admit, though, that Ronald Markman is a new name to me; better try and read up on him when I get the chance. I'm not that much for over-theorising either. And yes, I can agree that the crime scenes and victomology tells us rather a lot, but it is a not to our benefit that so much other material is missing, incomplete or contradictive.
"Tullamore Dew"? Isn't that whisky? (Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't drink one drop of alcohol until I became thirty...).
Hi Gary,
Well, I think I agree with you most if the time, so it's nice to take an opposite stand for a change. Yes, I have the Douglas book (naturally) and I just read that passage again. And I must say, that this is one of the few parts of the book that doesen't make sense to me, and never will. I find it hard to grasp that fantasies necessarily has to be connected with domination and manipulation. For a psychopath or sociopath -- yes! But a disorganized killer can have fantasies without showing signs of manipulation and domination. In my mind he may have killed them because he felt threatened by them or they reminded him of something with negative associations from the past. But then again, he could merely have done it because a "voice" told him to do so!
Yes - one can say that the murders and the mutilations may be attempts to gain control of those he feared and hated, but I wouldn't go that far as calling that "organized". If that was the case, when there wouldn't exist any real disorganized killers at all. I don't think Jack ever felt domination over his victims that strongly or that he had manipulative skills. All I see -- according to my own common sense -- is frenzy, fear, confusion and rage. And maybe even some kind of satisfaction from living out sexual fantasies (Sorry, AP, but I couldn't leave that alternative out). Or maybe he was a religious fanatic? It is not uncommon for offenders suffering from paranoid schizofrenia, that they believe some "outer force" is driving them to committ murder (actually this is more a rule than an exception), and that it all fits into a sick "plan" beyond their control -- whether it is voices or religious/sexual fantasies -- but that doesn't make them organized, since they themselves feel "trapped" and "driven" by this outer power. On many occastions, they act merely as robots (although their actions includes selecting a victim, performing the murder and signature and escaping).
Organized features in my interpretation are deliberate manipulation, cleverness, pre-planning, social ablities, exhibitionism and coldness. I don't see any of these in Jack the Ripper. Maybe in his ability to escape, but we can't be sure whether that simply was a result of him knowing/living in the area, an unexperienced police force and his natural instinct of self-preservation -- and maybe even luck.
A paranoid schizofrenic is quite capable of acting from some sort of logical thinking at certain occasions, and are also quite capable of for example having an occupation (although it doesen't last that long). It could be that I'm splitting hairs here, but I wouldn't call these character details "organized" in such a context; when one does that, one drains the terminology of its meaning. Douglas is indeed my favourite among criminal profilers, but I don't think he always makes sense, and this is such an example, as far as I am concerned. Well, those are my personal views and they may not be worth much in the long run, but once again, we are lurking through difficult territories of psychology and the criminal mind, here.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 384
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 7:13 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
I don't see our killer as a paranoid schizophrenic who is overtly delusional and hearing voices on a regular basis. I don't think he is eating garbage off the steet and killing whores to carry out the will of God. I don't agree with Douglas's conclusions about Jack in The Cases That Haunt Us.
I believe the killer we are loking for in actual fact to be a borderline or antisocial personality. (psychiatry has used psychopath, sociopath, anti-social personality and borderline personality, I believe in that order, as different names for the same thing-a person without a conscience who is unable to feel normal human empathy) I see our killer as feeling inadequate, he has trouble getting along in society, he has few if any close friends-yet he he has a grandiose view of himself. He thinks he should be regarded as an important member of society. How does he reconcile his life circumstances; working at a job that is beneath his abilities, living a boring life,perhaps with a harping wife, seeking sex from prostitutes etc., etc., with his view of himself.
The answer is that he seeks control, domination and to subjugate that which he dwells upon-the object of his sexual fantasies. In Jack's case prostitutes, especially older ones. I feel that without realizing it he does feel threatened and intimadated. He is subconsciously choosing victims who remind him of something from his past that has influenced him strongly. An intimidating, promiscuous mother, a prostitute who has mocked him or tried to cheat him, perhaps both.
I'm not saying these are the things that make him organized, these are the things that make him a lust-killer. His motivations are shared by both the disorganized and organized branches of this personality type.
I had better quit now as I am not sure I am making sense. As you say this gets rather complicated and to be honest involves broader generalizations about serial killers than I feel comfortable dealing in.
All The Best
Gary
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 652
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 10:23 pm: | |
Hi Gary,
Well, I am pleased to see, for the sake of the discussions, that I finally found at least one subject in which I totally disagree with you.
"I see our killer as feeling inadequate, he has trouble getting along in society, he has few if any close friends"
-- so far I can agree with you, but there it stops; then we differ completely in our opinions, I see. That explains it. But you are making perfectly sense -- from your perspective.
As you understand I almost totally agrees with Douglas' (and Hazelwood's) description of Jack the Ripper (except maybe for a few minor points that I find questionable but which are insignificant for the broader picture).
No, I don't think were looking for a psychopath here (I prefer to use the older, more clearer definitions, so everyone knows what's implied) and I don't believe at all he has a "grandiose view on himself" -- if that was the case, then he would inject him more in the investigation and try to seek attention by mocking communication to the press and the police. No, I don't think he had any claims to be regarded as an "important member of society" and no, I don't believe he was married (the times of the murders, late at night, indicates that he was encountable to noone).
You are certainly describing a vicious psychopath, but I can't see that person as Jack the Ripper. Still merely free deductions on my part, but that is what the crime scene evidence and the circumstances tell me. By the way, I never said that he ate garbage from the streets; as I pointed out earlier, a paranoid schizofrenic doesen't have too be that far out. That description I think is based on Kosminski, who probably was an ordinary schizofrenic or demented, but quite harmless.
Yes, I fear we are too far from each other in our opposite views on this point. But an interesting discussion nevertheless, Gary.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 08, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 83
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 10:54 pm: | |
Glenn, I just wanted to add a note of support for your post. While a paranoid schizophrenic may always seem a bit "off," he or she does NOT necessarily have to be foaming at the mouth and eating garbage off the street. Look at John Nash, for instance. A math genius who just happened to see people who weren't there. The popular conception of a mentally ill person as a raving, incoherent maniac just doesn't fit with the facts. Often you'll have no idea there's anything wrong with them until they mention that the guy in the TV sends them messages or that the CIA is out to kill him. I don't believe Douglas is suggesting any such thing in his profile of Jack, either.
Although there aren't a lot of serial killers who fall into this category, there are a few. Old Ed Gein seemed to more or less function in society until the police found a woman dressed like a deer carcass hanging from the rafters of his barn. No one ever thought he was normal, but they sure as heck didn't think he was making himself a vest from body parts.
Another thing about the behavior of paranoid schizophrenics is that their illness does not always come on all at once, nor is it always manifest. They do have their moments of lucidity; in fact, the paranoid variety are probably the most high-functioning of all the classes of schizophrenics. The most important thing to remember is that their behavior should not be considered static and unchanging; it may alter significantly, particularly as they age.
I want to add, also, that it may be a bit restrictive to think of schizophrenics as the only class of the mentally ill capable of doing violence. Psychosis occurs in several disorders, in varying degrees of severity. As I've mentioned before, my aunt is bipolar with psychotic features. Her breaks with reality are intermittant and typically occur only in times of severe stress and when she's off her medication. There's also the issue of tertiary syphilis, which as you all probably know that if left untreated, can cause psychosis and behavior that mimics that of the paranoid schiozphrenic. The transformation, however, is again by degrees, not all at once. Since the East End prostitutes were notorious disease-carriers, it is not inconceivable that Jack may have been infected. He may have initially seemed fairly ordinary but as the disease progressed into its final stage his mind, to quote Macnaghten, "simply gave way altogether," culminating in Kelly's murder. Thus, it isn't out of the question that he died of the disease not long afterwards or was institutionalized permanently. It would be interesting to ascertain how many, if any, of the Ripper suspects suffered from syphilis, and how it would have been diagnosed at the time.
P.S. This is a little off-topic, but it was so striking to me that I thought I'd share it with you all. While searching for the word "dressed" in reference to the cleaning of a deer (my memory for words is terrible these days) I came across a few of sites that detail exactly how this very unpleasant task is performed. Sounds a little familiar! Check them out if you can stomach this sort of thing. The last one includes graphic photos. Pay particularl attention to its fifth paragraph!
http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/conmag/2003/09/50.htm
http://www.alpharubicon.com/primitive/deerhuntclnbuckshot.htm
http://www.surviveoutdoors.com/reference/fielddress.asp
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on November 08, 2003)
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on November 08, 2003)
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on November 08, 2003) |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 85
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 11:22 pm: | |
I started a new thread in the "General Discussion" category regarding the hunting angle, if anyone's interested. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 653
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
Thank you, Erin. I share your thoughts completely. And I don't believe Douglas intended to describe Jack as a "raving lunatic" either -- I think this is a misconception based on some unfortunate prejudices (no offense, anyone) about this illness, and also in this case coming out of the stories about Kosminski.
Yes, there are many other psychotic disorders, but I think paranoid schizofrenia nevertheless is the one that fits best (and also the easiest one to consider if we don't want to indulge ourselves in too wide speculations), and it is also a very common diagnose in quite many cases of violent crimes.
Although I think it is quite plausible that Jack had been infected with syphilis from a prostitute, I find it hard to believe that he suffered from insanity originating from the results of that illness. I am not the medical expert here, but through studies (and contacts with doctors and historical researchers specialising on veneral diseases), I know that the three steps of the illness takes quite a long time to develop. The third and last step, which involves injuries on the nerves and brain, takes in general 20 years to develop, and death doesn't generally occure until 25 years after the first outbursts of the illness.
But then, that is based on our notion on Jack the Ripper as a younger offender -- he could very well have been 40--50 years of age during the murders, but it doesen't ring that true to me.
But you are absolutely right in your description of scizofrenics. I have tried to point that out several times, that their behaviour isn't always that predictical or static, from a text book point of view and that their illness doesn't necessarily have to cripple them totally from - for example - having an occupation for a shorter period of time. I think Hadden Clarke in connection with the murder on Laura Houghteling 1992 is a true example of that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 12:57 pm: | |
Which neatly brings us back to Richard Chase and the reason that I have always used him as a valid template for the crimes of Jack.
Richard was diagnosed by doctors who examined him before his killing spree as a 'dangerous acute paranoid schizophrenic' and recommended that he be detained in a secure institution, but his mother, who was mildly schizophrenic, took him home instead.
Richard could never act 'normal' but he could pass muster most days, giving his few friends and family the impression of a 'dope head who had lost touch with reality', and he was in fact very knowledgeable about human anatomy and modern medicine, impressing many of the doctors who examined him with his precise knowledge, but then he would let them down by claiming that someone had stolen his pulmonary artery and his blood had stopped flowing.
Actually even dangerous acute paranoid schizophrenics can make you laugh with their day to day behaviour rather than instilling fear, but then along comes that certain something, something almost intangible, which can change the frequencies and channels in that person's head and he suddenly becomes either very disruptive or downright dangerous.
This something could be something so simple as a stranger asking for a light.
The immediate and early symptons of syphillis are no more remarkable than a nappy rash.
As Glenn does point out the long term effects of syphillis take about the same time period of incubation as elephantiasis, as much as twenty to thirty years. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 655
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 6:57 pm: | |
"We would not give too much intelligence to the rat that avoids the garden with the cat. It is innate rather than organised ability at work.
[...]
For the crimes and crimes scenes speak of obvious lunacy, nobody is buried neatly and hidden away, no attempt has been made at illusion or camouflage, nobody is trying to hide anything, nobody is attempting to cover their tracks
[...]
Jack on the other hand kills his victims in a blitz of rage and just leaves the corpses there on the street, for all to see. Does this mean he wants to be caught? Not necessarily, it just means that he hasn’t thought about the consequences of his actions, and this to me says there was no motive or planning attached to the crimes or the crime scenes. They were both thoughtless.
[...]
We see an individual who is responding to situations and people in a bizarre and disorganized fashion, he might drink tea with them or he might slit their throats, depending almost entirely on how those situations and people respond to him, his vision of reality is distorted by delusion and very likely hallucination
[...]
I see an obvious lunatic, dripping with blood, an aberration who is completely and utterly delusional."
AP,
I just want to say, that - without getting all mushy here - the lines above are just a few of the extremely good remarks made by you in your recent messages. I couldn't have put any of those in better words myself. It just shows that one can fiercly disagree on one subject and then share each others views the next. I think that is great.
However, whether you like it or not, I actually think the above exemplifies criminal profiling and crime scene reading at its best, when it is not too restrained by armchair theorizing, but merely built on what one sees and on common sense, and I do believe that is what the FBI Behaviour Science Unit is trying to do, simply because their methods are sprung out of their daily work and their experience, while I don't give that much for profiling originating from the strict academic and reality-abscent millieus. I prefer logic and common sense to abstract theories.
I am a bit dusty on Richard Chase, so I unfortunately can't comment on him, but according to your accounts so far, the connection isn't uninteresting.
Regarding syphilis: if I remember correctly, the first stage is rashs, which disappears by themselves after a few weeks. Then the second stage sets in, with more serious forms of open flesh wounds, sores in mounth etc. (this is generally the stage which was first diagnosed, as the former could easily be overlooked), and it was usually here that the quicksilver "treatment" (a painful ordeal, which by itself killed many ot the patients) was set in. This stage - treatment or not - healed itself after about six months and then the vicious third and last stage appeared after some twenty years, with damage on nerves, brain and muscles - and finally (in some cases) insanity prior to death.
I think I'll stop complaining when I catch my annual cold...
I think I'll have that brandy now, AP. Sorry to hear about your glasses.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 88
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 10:03 pm: | |
Well-said, both of you. I couldn't agree more. Chase actually came to mind when I was reading Douglas's book.
I didn't know that stuff about syphilis, just an idea I was kicking around. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 658
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 10:40 pm: | |
Hi Erin,
Thank you.
"I didn't know that stuff about syphilis, just an idea I was kicking around."
Well, actually you're not the first to suggest this scenario and it is not a bad idea at all, if we'd consider Jack to be a bit older. I only came to know these things since one of the female murder victims I've studied in my own work suffered from syphilis as well as the consequenses from a seven months treatment, and therefore felt I had to get in touch with some experts on the field.
And for the record: thanks to Swedish documentation, we also know that Liz Stride had to go through a similar kind of treatment in Gothenburg before she came to England. This "treatment" wasn't replaced by antibiotics until the 1920:s in Scandinavia.
Can't say I give much for the "treatment", though. As I said in an earlier thread concerning Liz Stride:
In Scandinavia (and I think the rest of the world as well) syphilis was treated with quicksilver and there were three ways to do it, and for the most part these were combined:
a) inhaling fumes containing quicksilver
b) having the body rubbed in with quicksilver salve
c) being forced to drink a solution of quicksilver and water, sweeten with syrup
The treatment was very painful and not all patients survived the side-effects. The most common one was quicksilver poisining, where the first signs were a rich occurence of saliva and a loss of teeth, as well as black discolouring inside the palate. Then the quicksilver strikes the muscles and organs.
Furthermore: all of these three "methods" mentioned above was added or combined with strong laxatives throughout the period of treatment.
Dinner, anyone?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 09, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 386
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 12:19 am: | |
Hello All
Well, it seems we can conlcude with certainty that Jack The Ripper was a paranoid shizoprhenic and we can dismiss all other options. This view seems to be by popular acclamation and those who disagree don't understand the workings of the mind of a schizophrenic.
At the risk of being a heretic I would cautiously put forard that I have known a number of schizophrenics in my time and actually provided legal assistance gratis for some of them. I have also come in contact with some who suffer from this disorder through my wife who is a pharmacist. She deals with them reasonably often. So my opinion, while it may be 'completely wrong', is not based on wild theorizing and some common sense is involved; although I cannot be entirely certain of the common sense aspect, since I am assessing my own ability to reason. Naturally this involves some subjectivity on my part.
A paronoid schizophrenic, when taking their medication, is about as harmless as a person can be. Unfortunately they have a troublesome habit of deciding that since they are feeling well, they can stop their medications.
According to what I have 'learned' on this thread this would mean that a certain number would revert to their natural state as either serial killers or potential serial killers.
Amazingly this has not proven to be the case in my experience and with the majority of those cases I have read about. As I have noted to myself many times, the only people that these paranoid schizophrenics were a danger to was themselves. Prejudices and preconceptions about the illness notwithstanding.
Now this is not to say that some serial killers are not paranoid schizophrenics. Some certainly are of this type. Others have made themselves out to be paranoid schizophrenics in order to obtain the more comfortable accomodations of a prison for the insane rather than an ordinary prison.
However, if I am wrong then the search for Jack has been narrowed to killers similar in type to Richard Chase, The 'Vampire Killer' as profiled by a person who does not accept the validity of profiling according to their own staement on another thread. I will therefore not belabour my point in this post nor bother to restate my previous posts, wherein I think I have made my opinion clear.
All The Best
Gary
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 89
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 4:09 am: | |
That's funny. I don't recall saying for certain that Jack was a paranoid schizophrenic. I also don't recall saying all schizophrenics were dangerous potential serial killers. In fact, I believe I said just the opposite--that the vast majority were in fact more of a danger to themselves than others. Oh, and I think I may also have mentioned how rare mentally ill serial killers are and that I could only think of one other example in the literature. Wait, I also seem to recall mentioning just a few posts back that schizophrenics aren't the only mentally ill individuals capable of committing the sort of violence Jack did. Not that the mentally ill are generally violent, but I think I've said that enough times already in my many posts on this topic that it should be understood by now to anyone who's been following the thread at all.
You know, I never thought quoting from the DSM-IV was "wild theorizing," but I guess I could check my conclusions with my friend, who was a psychiatric social worker for 15 years and has probably spent more time around the mentally ill than the rest of us combined--but wait, I seem to have done that already! Oh, and how irresponsible of me to bring up my formerly institutionalized aunt who at times suffers from delusions and hallucinations not unlike those of a schizophrenic. Then there's that nagging issue that Ally hates for me to bring up, the fact that I spent a little time studying criminology, where my knowledge that the mentally ill generally aren't dangerous was merely reinforced.
I suppose since I'm not a lawyer, doctor, or pharmacist, everything I've said on the subject of schizophrenia must be complete and utter nonsense with no basis in fact whatsoever and therefore unworthy of even the slightest consideration.
P.S. I'm starting to understand how your frustration, A.P., when we comment on a topic and then discover that you've actually covered the same ground many times over, which we would have known had we bothered to read what you've written. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 659
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 7:10 am: | |
Well,
I can only go along with Erin, that noone has ever stated for certain that Jack the Ripper was a paranoid schizofrenic, but that the crime scenes evidence from a behavioural point of view indicates that rather than anything else, in my opinion. It depends on which grounds one makes the deductions. I'm simply doing my reasoning from that methodical fundament, which of course could be a completely wrong approach, although I for the moment feel quite comfortable that it is the right one. Neither has Douglas & Co monopoly of the truth; I think everything is merely a matter of opinion and personal interpretations of the crime scenes.
I'm afraid that Gary came to the false conclusion, that I referred to him when I mentioned "armchair theorizing" and "I don't give that much for profiling originating from the strict academic and reality-abscent millieus". Because I certainly didn't and I wouldn't dream of doing so.
There are other branches of criminal profiling, than those that comes from FBI, namely a few relatively well-known names from the academic circles (rather than from the police force), such as Turvey (who very much has quite a different approach and who has reached other conclusions, as far as I am concerned on false grounds not based on reality but on theory). I may have been a bit unclear, but those were the ideological representatives I adressed that remark to -- not Mr. Weatherhead. I apologise if my remarks gave that impression.
I must say I am very disappointed of the outcome of this discussion, which I think has become a really interesting one since we all here at last managed to drag it back into the real meaning of the subject thread. It is my sincere hopes that we all here can manage to disagree with each other without indulging ourselves in unnecessary frustration; this is not a contest and we are all intelligent people here. But I truly claim my right to disagree when necessary.
For the record:
a) Today different forms of schizofrenia are held back with medication, which wasn't the case in 1888.
b) Some paranoid schizofrenics can be extermely violent, also to others, because they see things around them as a threat to their own existence or because they have hallucinations. I have myself encountered this where I live, and we have plenty of cases in Sweden implying that. During the last year we've had a vast number of clear and well known murder cases, all involving knives and butchered violence, which can be adressed to individuals suffering from paranoid schizofrenia (with a stated diagnosis from the authorities) but who haven't gotten any aid from society due to cut-downs. This may be a controversial fact and it is indeed unfortunate, but it is facts nevertheless.
People with mental illnesses are generally NOT dangerous people -- in connection to the Ripper suspects, Kosminski could be seen as an example of that.
However, I do think paranoid schizofrenics sometimes should be considered as a completely different matter, and I have friends working in metal hospitals confirming this. Some of these individuals (mind you, not all!) are unpredictable and can be very problematic if they are not given the proper medication, and I don't care if such a fact isn't political correct to put forward. Sweden has suffered greatly during recent years from the medical societies' incapability to take care of them and help them and it doesen't take an Einstein to see the results. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with schizofrenics in general and I believe most many of them -- regardless of which subgroup they belong to -- can lead quite normal lives if given medication and also that there naturally are different levels of each illness to consider, as well as individual discrepancies.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 7:37 am: | |
Hi all
Just a medical enquiry re Kosminski :
I've seen Kosminski described as a paranoid schizophrenic. I've also seen the fact that he was sent to an asylum for imbeciles used as an argument for his not being the Ripper. I'm confused! Can someone be a paranoid schizophrenic and an imbecile?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 8:13 am: | |
Hi Glenn
Armageddon will occur when someone starts a thread : "Can profiling elucidate the Diary?"
Robert |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
Garry wrote: "I am asking, because those who claim him to be a disorganized killer with occasional organized features, so far haven't managed to put forward a single organized feature that fits the picture, without creating an incredibly contradictive personality. "
:Sighs: This is just getting so old.
I've put forward lists of the organized features several times over on these boards and in this thread already to boot. The fact that you refuse to accept them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
And, frankly, I think the people stumping for a disorganized personality are the ones full of contradictions. Like, say, assuming an organized killer would have hid the bodies, although nobody can seem to come up with any logical way the killer could have done so without drawing further attention to himself. Or claiming that killing outside was too dangerous for an organized killer but again not supporting that notion with solid facts that these locations were any more dangerous than other areas, or coming up with a logical way to be able to reliably get victims indoors and alone in a location where private rooms were rare and beyond the financial means of most people, even for short periods of time.
The people arguing that Jack the Ripper must have been disorganized and irrational because they don't understand why he made the moves he did when and where he did is kind of like people assuming that individuals speaking an unfamiliar foreign language must be idiots because they open their mouths and make sounds that don't seem to make sense. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 11:11 pm: | |
"He must come from chaos."
>>Purely conjecture in itself. Is schizophrenia chaos? Is bubble-gum chewing chaos? I wouldn't necessarily think so. Seems to me you've got an arbitrary center, AP.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
"..he didn’t know he was going to kill until he was approached..."
>>But then how do you account for the fact that he was prepared to kill? He carried a customized knife suited to the specific mutilations, plus also probably a towel to clean up, and he was wearing loose clothes fit to hold his tools and the purloined body parts discretely. |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 1:26 pm: | |
It has often surprised me that the Kosminski of 1892 should be equated with the Kosminski of 1888.
Sometimes the onset of the psychosis starts in the twenties.If A.Kosminski began a "mission" for want of a better word in his twenties by the time he reached MJK he would probably have been approaching "burn out". Afterwards he may well have become the shambling wreck we read about him being in 1892.Natalie. |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 5:35 am: | |
Hi Gary
I said "one or none" . Some police opinion places faith in a single witness, be it Lawende, Schwarz or a City policeman (or indeed someone as yet unidentified) who was the 'only person to get a good look at the murderer' - although of course if the victim was Stride we now have some reason to at least suspect that her killer may not in fact be the Ripper
Other police memories / opinions seem to go along the line of 'we are no nearer knowing who he is now than at the time' which suggests none of the more detailed descriptions - e.g. Hutchinson - were held in much regard.
So, there is no (known - other information may of course come to light) police opinion supporting any specific witness at all, although one is course free to speculate on who the 'one' was.
Regards
Pete |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 661
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 9:47 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Blimey! How did you come up with that lethal combination? I dare not to even think about it! 
Regarding Kosminski: I have heard that as well and he is also stated as such in the Ustinov documentary. I have really no idea what the real medical documents from Coney Hatch say about him, but according to what we know today he would most likely to be considered an "ordinary" schizofrenic", since there seem to be no signs of paranoid tendensies. But we can't be sure, and he could actually be one of those many paranoid scizofrenics that don't have any violent tendensies. Indeed a trick question.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 662
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 9:52 am: | |
Actually, Dan.
It was me who wrote that quote of yours, not Gary. So I don't think he should stand trial for it.
And I stand firm on my points regarding that matter. I put up a list abobe over organized features as well, and I certainly can't find any of these suitable to Jack the Ripper.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 10, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 387
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 10:38 am: | |
Hello All
Erin -What makes you believe my comments were directed at you. My comments were brought out of my frustration that we cannot agree to disagree. Further that we have have to keep beating the same dead horse, take quotes out of context or ignore other peoples qualifying statements and imply that a categoric statement has been made when it has not.
If you want to engage in personal invective with eveone who disagrees with you or does not fully agree with you, then I believe the appropriate thing to do would be to e-mail all of those people and go at it one on one. E-mail would also be the proper place to send your resume, complete with all educational accomplishments and relevant life experiences.
All The Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 388
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hello
I have reviewed my last couple of posts and feel that I have behaved in a churlish fashion. I am probably quilty of doing some of the things I have accused others of doing and generally brought disrepute upon myself and my profession.
I have consulted with a close colleague and good friend. We have decided that some form of punishment was in order.
It has therefore been decided that I will be flogged on the courthouse steps for the city of Columbia, State of South Carolina. The spectacle will take place at high noon on Tuesday, November 11th. The event will be open to the public and reserved seating will be available. This will not however, be an RSVP event.
Dress will be casual, although a shirt and shoes will be expected.
All The Best
Gary
P.S. hope to see you there. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1207
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Good heavens, Gary! It's last minute deals that are supposed to be struck on courthouse steps - not lawyers.
I mean, when Henry Fonda walks down the courthouse steps at the end of "Twelve Angry Men", there isn't a bunch of lawyers all flogging each other in the background. The film would have been banned!
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
