|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 416
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 4:50 pm: |       |
Hi Glenn
Thanks for your thoughts on my post. I will go over them and get back to you as soon as I get back in town.
All The Best
Gary
(Thanks to Trevor Weatherhead) |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:17 am: | |
Caz
I’d run along quite happily with your thoughts about a masochistic element in Pinball Jack’s make-up - but I’m uncertain if such an element really existed in Barnett’s character. There is so much hype surrounding Joe at the moment that it is beginning to be difficult to grasp the real man, and we are instead left grappling with a distorted, unrealistic character much like one of them US Presidents on the election trail.
To be honest I’m enormously tempted to see a very masochistic streak in Pinball Jack, also combined with a development from childish self-harm to experimental harm on others, starting off in his family circle of course.
I could wear this like a Gucci suit, but it would be vaguely dishonest of me, as there appears to be an emerging rumour - strongly supported by researchers I might add - that self-harm and other masochistic sports, such as cutting with knives, were popular in both the Haynes and Cutbush families.
So I’ll resist that temptation for that reason.
Your reasoning concerning Pinball Jack and his chance encounters with whores, and then his possible reactions to such encounters make uncommon good sense.
Quite some time ago I postulated that Pinball Jack when faced with such a chance encounter would find himself in the common behavioural situation of ‘fight or flight’, and that such things as distance and proximity of the other person, sudden noise, presence of third parties and other external influences would very much dictate which reaction Pinball Jack’s chemical self would take.
Fight or flight is quite precise, one animal advances on another and it will elicit little response until it strays into the individual flight distance sphere of the first animal, which will then step back slightly to regain its lost individual flight distance sphere, however if the other animal continues its advance to the stage where there is no hope of recovering that individual flight distance sphere then the chemical reaction is fight or flight. What happens next is dependent on chemical influence and external influence, but generally speaking what happens next is that the animal whose individual flight distance sphere has been invaded flees, but if the escape path is blocked then it will fight, and in this precarious situation the prey often becomes the predator and inflicts grievous injuries on its antagonist to protect itself… the cornered rat being the obvious example.
So Caz, we might be looking at a situation as simple as that, when Pinball Jack’s escape path was clear he fled such confrontation, but if it was blocked by the advance of whore bearing down on him - or other external influences that he perceived as a danger to him or his fragile psyche - then he attacked.
I am not the sort of person who studies the geography of crime scenes - far too logical for my addled brain - but I know there are many out there who do, and I would urge these people to study the crime scenes yet again with this thought in mind.
I’m still dwelling on your learning curve.
|
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 7:07 pm: | |
AP,
Besides cynical, I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to know that criminal cases can’t be solved by profiling alone. Assuming I’m right and that you weren’t talking about profiling alone in your remark about ‘still waiting for someone to show you one single murder case, etc.’, I give you two cases that were solved as a result of profiling, as well as plain old detective work and a helpful public.
Paul Kenneth Bostock: he killed Caroline Osborne and Amanda Weedon in Leicester, England
Avzal Norman Simons (also known as the Station Strangle) : he killed over twenty little boys in Mitchell’s Plane, South Africa
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1435
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 7:17 pm: | |
Hi Frank
AP's gone on holiday, so you probably won't get a reply for a while.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 7:56 pm: | |
Hi All,
I must admit I was being tongue-in-cheek with AP about a masochistic Joe Barnett. I actually think he just did what a hell of a lot of blokes did then – he met up with a woman who made no secret of being on the game; they immediately set up home together (not at all uncommon, according to Henry Mayhew’s wonderful surveys), and Joe most likely preferred it when he could be the breadwinner and didn’t have to share his girl with all and sundry.
I do wonder about AP’s idea of a Pinball Jack getting himself into these ‘fight or flight’ situations. Do his crimes point to someone so exceptionally dense? And I’m trying to resist the feeling I’m getting that he doesn’t want poor wee Jack to have had any control over the mix of chemicals that made him rip (yet allowed him to get clean away each time, and gave him a desire to take souvenirs?). And flashing is basically a sexual activity that requires two people – the flasher and his ‘victim’, the witness. It wouldn’t have the desired effect – whatever that may be – if the flasher were alone on a desert island. So if Jack was a flasher, would he have done it more or less at random, to a variety of female witnesses? Or would he have targeted a certain type of female, indicating a conscious choice while still on the sexual level? (Incidentally, where does testosterone come into all this? Or doesn’t it? Must ask AP on his return.)
I don’t think anyone needs reminding that the victims didn’t deserve their fate. But looking at it logically, they did die for men’s sexual satisfaction. If ordinary men hadn’t wanted to buy their services, the women would have found other ways to survive or they would have died of want – but not by Jack’s knife. Men’s sexual satisfaction is what gave Jack such easy access to his victims, whether he consciously took advantage of this fact or would have seen himself as a victim of it.
Perhaps it’s because I can’t bring myself to think of Jack as some kind of ‘innocent abroad’, and the non-murdering males who regularly used prostitutes as the real villains who made his crimes possible, that I want to see him as more of a predator than they were – one who knew perfectly well how the night might end up when he set out into the darkness during those weeks, sharp knife at the ready. Just ignore me, I know I’m not being entirely objective about all this. 
Love,
Caz
|
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 41
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 12:50 am: | |
Robert,
Thanks for letting me know.
Frank |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:39 pm: | |
A. P., with all due respects, your postulation of 10:17 Nov. 28. does not hold water when compared to the facts.
First, if "Pinball Jack" had acted as you surmise; why were there not shop girls, bar maids, clerks (telegraph), or simply individual women traversing Whitechapel included as victims?
Jacko may have been sick, but he seems to have been very selective...as far as the victims with common attributes.
I believe Martha Tabram was a victim, but a woman, whose name I cannot remember now, who opened the door and was stabbed repeatedly, was the first of JtR's assaults.
Best of wishes, while I down another malted beverage,
Billy |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 5:09 am: | |
AP wrote:
"‘Well of course he murdered and mutilated the whores for sexual gratification. I mean what else are whores - and women - good for?’ I do honestly fear that some of you are actually insidiously implying that. "
Only if you want to put highly offensive words into people's mouths.
We know that certain kinds of killers, especially people who kill on a regular basis for no other known motive, do it for the thrill they get sexually from the violence and from being in control over the life and death of another person. To say that the Jack the Ripper killings clearly have the same indications is not at all the same as saying that women are only good for sex or deserve to be killed.
It'd be nice if all people had healthy sex lives and never had socially destructive desires. Pointing out that some people are perverts of the worst kind doesn't make one a pervert.
Your argument seems to be similar to accusing the people who study hate groups of being racist / homophobic / etc. themselves. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 422
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 4:12 am: | |
Hi Glenn and All
Glenn-I agree with your implication that profiling is an inexact science and leaves many questions unanswered. It is useful insofar as it can point to certain behavioral traits. As far as specifying the exact nature of a particular serial killers psychiatric diagnosis, profiling leaves much to be desired and is better termed an artform.
Pat Brown, in her book KILLING FOR SPORT, states the following regarding whether serial killers are psychotics or psychopaths, 'Very few serial killers ever exhibit psychotic behavior(...behavior that convinces us that the individual had NO clue as to what was right or wrong, normal or abnormal)...A psychotic is just too easy to catch...Psychopaths on the other hand give law enforcement migraine headaches. Psychopaths(...a personality best described as "egocentric" and "anti-social")...know darn well what they are doing. They know what society thinks is right and wrong, and they don't care...Pshcopathic behaviors coupled with an obsession with violence may lead to (serial) homicide'(pg 36-37)
The exact nature of the sexual motivations behind the serial killers behavior is a thorny subject and is fraught with pitfalls. I agree with what Ms. Brown had to say on the subject. In a subheading titled "Why Would a Serial Killer Have Sex With The Body After The Person Is Dead-" She states 'It (appears to be) the only way some of these guys can score. Only when the woman cannot reject (the killer) can he play with and explore her body...(I)t is not so much about having sex as it is showing power over another person. Some killers are so hooked on the power of the kill that they cannot (obtain sexual gratification) unless they have experienced the ultimate power of killing their prey. To them killing is foreplay.(pg.141)
She goes on to try and explain how these killings can be termed sexual, even when there is no direct sexual contact. 'As long as the serial killer gets sexual gratification from the homicide (during or after) then it is a sexual homicide....The term sexual homicide should be applied to the motive behind the kill.' (pg.102)
I quote at length, or perhaps adnauseam from this book because it points out the pitfalls and shortcomings of what the hard-line profilers would have us believe are hard and fast rules for all serial killers.
As I like to say, those of us with rational minds have difficulty comprehending individuals with markedly different thought processes from our own. That doesn't mean any one individuals opinion is any more valid than that of anyone elses.
All The Best
Gary |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 53
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:49 am: | |
Glenn I think I can see where the confusion lies between us.Is it perhaps to with the word intelligence? In English a person can be very intelligent but behave in an unreasonable absurd way for example Oscar Wilde most of the time appears to have been very clever and witty but he was not exactly wise and some would say he was actually rather silly and foolish to have taken the risks he did and to have courted disgracand ostracism the way he did.However there is no doubting his intelligence as he is sometimes quoted as having been the most brilliant student Oxford ever produced.Now I am not saying he was schizophrenic or anything just poiting to the apparent paradoxes.
With Jack I think I see him like you do but I also believe he was bright too.Without repeating what I said on the other thread I believe he had a kind of genius for evasion and an ability to present to the women as someone they were OK with.
But here I dispute strongly that he was a local man[ofcourse he may have been].This is because of the histort and nature of the East end.The traditional Eastend which ofcourse includes the various immigrant and oppressed groups "looked out for" its inhabitants.This was partly why the fascists were chased out of Cable Street to protect the Jewish inhahitants[or rather fight Moseley alongside them].The same sorts of movements were afoot in 1888-very much so with all sorts of developments thatwere worrying the establishment and threatening social upheaval.It was as fertile a ground for the various radical movements as you would ever get with all sorts of revolutionaries too circulating such as Lenin and slightly later [1900 approx]Trotsky and many others.These people were there not just because it was cheap [obviously it was but also because they felt relatively safe in such a sympathetic area.If Jack was known he would have been sussed
by local people [not necessarily the vigilante group]just ordinary eastenders who were on the lookout.And this is one of the great surprises-the eastenders didnt know!Like the police they appear to have not had a clue.[except to talk about "Toffs" and the royal family etc.That is what is so strange about it.Later two of the police gave their opinions{Druitt and Kosminski
and that was about it until Abberline threw in Chapman for good measure.I"ve gone on long enough Cheers Glenn Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 760
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:19 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Nice talking to you; your posts bring up points that doesen't contain the usual arguments, so I think they are interesting.
Yes, I believe the word "intelligence" here is misleading, and I can see that you actually grasp what I mean. I am not so sure about that the Ripper needed to interact or persuade the women that much, Natalie. They were desperate for money and couldn't afford to turn that many customers away. I think they had to put up with drunkards and other sorry characters as well, as long as they could pay for the service. I actually find it quite plausible that THEY approached him and then led him to a spot they felt suitable. This is how it usually worked. Jack didn't even had to say a thing, just show them that he had the money.
Your reasoning about East End I find very interesting and refreshing, although I must admit I don't follow it completely. I think you are reading too much into the political and social circumstances in that respect -- they may very well be valid, but I find it very hard to believe that the inhabitants in the over-crowded East End, with its large population of people from different kind of cultures, were that much aware of every single individual in their neighbourhood. I hear what you say about staying close to a group of the same religion or nationality, but I don't think every individual in such a large melting-pot was known to the rest of the community. Maybe in a smaller town, but hardly in districts like Whitechapel and Spitalfields in a large city like London.
And even if that WAS the case, it doesen't rule out that the Ripper lived in and knew the area of the events. There is really no reason to assume, that the people in his community or neighbourhood would have connected him with the murders. Appearently the prostitutes didn't, in spite of the fact that there is a 50--50 chance for him being one of their customers. I think, that the inhabitants -- during the Ripper scare -- suspected quite a number of various people, within or outside their own groups.
The point is, that he couldn't have managed to perform the crimes and escape from scene without being very familiar with the area -- every indication regarding the Ripper's crimes and movements show that he knew his way around, and he would absolutely have been caught otherwise.
Another reason for me holding that opinion is, that the murder locations forms a comfort zone for his crimes, and it is quite probable that he lived somewhere in the centre of this pattern. This is, of course, a more speculative theory, but I think it must be taken in consideration, and it has also been the case in a number of other cases involving serial killers. I believe in the opposite -- it would be too risky for him to commit such murders in an area he didn't know that well and where he didn't know the police beats. To me it is quite evident that he was a local man, although we can't say anything with 100 percents certainty, of course. But I don't think the political/social arguments are strong enough to change that direction. And since a lot of the suspect files are lost to us, it is really quite hard to speculate about what the police did or didn't know, and which suspects that really were discussed on a contemporary basis in 1888.
Cheers, Natalie.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 55
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 5:24 am: | |
Glenn thanks for your reply-its good talking to you too and vert helpful as I dont know as much as most of you about serial killing and the like so have had to approach it from a different angle.
I am learning and several of you have been so helpful.However I am not able to take this machine for repair until next Friday now and as I keep losing stuff half way through I would ask that you bear with me while I type this in small sections[this being the first]Many thanks Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 56
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 5:43 am: | |
Glenn to continue[apologies for "vert" I meant "very"].
London as it was in 1888 was acollection of glorified villages with separately defined characteristics and traditions.Its my contention that JtR wouldnt have got away with it with so many looking at each other looking out for each other as well and with an international outcry going on about it all.He would have been sussed unless very new to the district [such as David Cohen was apparently and therefore an unknown character] or from outside the eastend[just] such as Druitt.My point about the composition of the Eastend is that for all its "apparent" heterogenity it was more homogeneous than at first seems to be the case.People living there banded together doring the outcry [and at other times and as witnessed by the formation of vigilante groups [will post this section] Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1545
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 5:53 am: | |
Hi Natalie
If your machine keeps shutting down on you, why not type your letters on Microsoft Word, saving them as you go along, and then paste them onto the message box? Then if the machine packs in, you still have the letter already typed for the next try.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 57
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 5:57 am: | |
Glenn to continue[apologies for "vert" I meant "very"].
London as it was in 1888 was acollection of glorified villages with separately defined characteristics and traditions.Its my contention that JtR wouldnt have got away with it with so many looking at each other looking out for each other as well and with an international outcry going on about it all.He would have been sussed unless very new to the district [such as David Cohen was apparently and therefore an unknown character] or from outside the eastend[just] such as Druitt.My point about the composition of the Eastend is that for all its "apparent" heterogenity it was more homogeneous than at first seems to be the case.People living there banded together doring the outcry [and at other times and as witnessed by the formation of vigilante groups [will post this section] Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 58
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 6:02 am: | |
Thanks Robert I just lost some and the machine reposted the old one-again! apologies.A brilliant idea-I"ll try that now. |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 59
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 6:13 am: | |
Glenn/Robert-once again-Sptalfields and the area of Whitdchapel he "operated" inare relatively easy to get to know-including the alleyways.It takes no more than five or ten miutes to get from one part to the other so it wouldnt have taken him long to stalk his victims work out the beats of the police and the beats of the women he targeted know they were heavy drinkers and also know how to appear to be harmless because at the height of the ripper scare "natural instinct if you like would have made them very wary unless of course they were suicidal . |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 60
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 6:29 am: | |
Glenn/Robertre schizophrenia versus psycopathic;
I guess I"ve got to be honest here and admit that my own suspects are Druitt and David Cohen[alias Kosminski] with a chance on Cutbush because there is such a "denial" by Macnaghten that it rouses my suspicions and as Gary has also wondered about.
Anyway all three were either paranoid schizophrenics or closely connectedto the illness through birth[Druitts mother suffered paranoid delusions].They each could have believed they were "under orders" to kill the women in the way they were killed.Nothing much was gained from the killings that we know of.
If a psycopath had done the murders then you would expect to see some evidence of gain-something more in the way of sexual satisfaction
or to rob the women.Cheers Glenn and thaks for your patiece.-Robert too |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1546
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 8:13 am: | |
Hi Natalie
Interesting stuff. Cohen, Cutbush and Druitt are on my list too.
I can't really take part in the profiling debate, because I don't know a lot about it. Nor do I know much about other serial killers. I do intend to try and rectify this - but by the time I'm clued up, I'll have no one to debate with because the whole subject will have been flogged to death!
(Only joking - profiling, like Joe Barnett, will still be here in ten thousand years' time).
Basically my attitude is, if someone looks like a good suspect then I'm interested.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 764
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
Hi Natalie,
Interesting posts as always. Not many of us here are really experts on serial killers in the word's true meaning, so don't excuse yourself. Your opinions are welcome. Sorry for my late response, but here it goes.
Hope Robert's tip worked out for you; I have done that a couple of times, when I have written longer messages.
Yes, I see your point about the homogene living conditions, and it is an interesting argument. However, even if people in his community knew the man in question, that doesen't automatically have to imply that they knew he was Jack the Ripper and that they would have put two and two together. And even if some of his closest relatives or neighbours were aware of the situation, there is a possibility that they protected and hid him -- this is a scenario put forward by Fido among others. So you see, there are several possible explanations to this.
As far as knowledge of the area is concerned: now, I haven't been to London yet myself, but I think you are underestimating the situation a bit. To be able to escape after the murders, you would have to know the police beats (yes, I don't think that would be too hard, and -- as I've stated earlier -- the prostitutes most likely knew them, but I don't think it would be that easy for someone who isn't local), and then you would have to avoid the police following you and arriving at the scene. Under such circumstances, and especially under mental distress, I think it would require a local man to do it. Some would say that this would point at quite a sharp and clever character, but local knowledge would, in my view, be sufficient enough -- and I don't think a non-local man would pull it off under such circumstances. That is not logical to me. I hear what you say, but you must also take the situation itself in consideration, not just the geography and demographics.
Furthermore, as I indicated in my last post, the type of killer you suggest (and which I agree on; I'll get back to that below) usually commit his crimes close to his neighbourhood and very often the first one close to his own home. That killer type isn't secure enough to take his business into areas that he has no relation to, and to perform his operation close to his own environment would be the natural thing for him to do. There are always exceptions, but experiences has shown, that this is usually the case.
I am not sure I really grasped the meaning of your reasoning about the prostitutes, since there were no punctuation marks and English is not my first language. It was a bit tricky to read, although I am aware that you've had technical problems. I just want to point out that there is a possibility for me misreading you here. But if you with "natural instinct if you like would have made them very wary unless of course they were suicidal" meant that the prostitutes would have been extra careful during the Ripper scare, I think that is a misconception. It is true that at the worst scare, some of them stayed off the streets temporarily, but this was a very short period. Otherwise, dealing with all sorts of strange characters was a part of their hazardous occupation. I wouldn't call it suicidal, but through my own studies of prostitute women during the late 19th century, I have learnt that they were quite tough individuals, and I think the fact that they continued to walk the streets in spite of the gruesome murders, tells us that. I am sure they were suspicious of some occasional client, but they really didn't have much of a choice. Or as one one of the women themselves said: it was either the Ripper or starvation for most of them. They were in no position to be picky about it. Most of them were also more or less alcoholics and needed to get money for that. Not to mention to find a bed for the night.
Regarding schizophrenia versus psycopathic, I agree with your opinions. I believe the Ripper to be someone who acted "under orders" as well. I am not so sure that a psychopath wold rob his victims, and we can't be sure whether or not the mutilations have sexual meaning, but besides those pointers, I don't see that much evidence of a psychopath on a spree here either.
As far as the suspects are concerned, we seem to share much of the same views; Druitt is always interesting, although we have nothing much to connect him to the Ripper except Macnaughten. David Cohen is indeed an interesting one. Martin Fido's theory is a bit constructed and complicated, and there really is no satisfying evidence that links Cohen to Kosminski. But I think it is one of the more appealing suspects nevertheless -- that is, if one buys the lunatic suspect (which I do). Now, the biggest problem with Cohen is that he is REALLY ill, if we look at how his condition was when they found him. I don't think it would be possible for such a sick individual (totally unable to take care of himself) to perform the Ripper murders. The only explanation that I can come up with, is that the degree of his illness increased thanks to the murders and hit it's peek with Mary Kelly -- a deed that mentally could have put him in that vegetable state as when the police found him. It is speculation, but not impossible. And yes, I think Cutbush is an interesting suspect as well.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 12, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 61
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:04 am: | |
Glenn and Robert-Well I have begun to learn a bit about profiling now and take on board your points Glenn.Of special interest to me is the point you make about Jack needing to feel comfortable and able to escape back home.However only recently[I have mentioned this before here]a man with this illness came off his medication drove up to a beach up North with his dog then picked a fight with another man with a dog and stabbed him to death some fifty miles from home and in broad daylight.It took a little while to catch him but they did.[1st section Best Natalie. |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 62
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:19 am: | |
Glenn/Robert
2.The prostitutes would not have gone woth someone who looked threatening to the extent of being a mad lunatic-some presence of mind was necessary despite being in a mood of delusion
this would have needed to have been concealed
-even a starving animal wont take food from someone who it fears may harm it.Therefore I believe Jack to have worked out a non threatening way of conducting himself which brings me to
3.Yes I agree the David Cohen of Colney Hatch-he is too far gone.But his illness may only have reached "burn out" when he set about MJK.Likewise Kosminski[I tend to see them separately still but it maybe that it was one and the same.
Glenn-its so good to talk to you-so helpful really.Likewise yourself Robert.Best Natalie |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 507
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:39 am: | |
Guys,
Would it be possible for Cohen to have rapidly declined into such a state ?
I mean, how long does it take? We are all different.
This question is born out of watching the Bruno Documentary last night.
Monty
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Hi Natalie
Yes, I agree he probably wasn't a bug-eyed nutter - unless he was one of these for the last murder, i.e. if he was someone who simply walked into Kelly's room (as opposed to a "client" whom she'd brought home).
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 64
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:02 pm: | |
Monty-I missed the Bruno documentary and dont know much about his difficulties.However I have known and through my mother"s work in a big psychriatric Hospital as it was then called in the seventies -I have known of anumber of people with the illness.I dont know how rapid deterioration is and yes it probably does vary in rate from one person to the next but the term "burn out" for a person with schizophrenia
means that the illness having reached a certain point leaves the person but often the person[especially if they havent had medication]is about finished/completely spent and devastated
and used to until recently anyway spent the rest of their lives in a vegetable state.This hasnt happened nearly so much in the past twenty years
but it does even now become one of the consequences especially if neglected.How long though---sometimes only months.Best 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.
|
|
|
|
