|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 189
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 4:54 pm: | 
|
Robert,
The "going silent" is exactly what I have noticed in George VI's speeches, as if he knew he were about to stutter and paused to regain control. Yet it is often described as a "stammer." My point is that the word "stammer" can be used to refer to something other than outright stuttering.
And, I beg your pardon on my misnumbering of the Monarch. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip with refence to future possibilties! 
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 997
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Hi Andy
I think he did stammer at home, but speech therapy plus fear of cutting a bad figure in public sort of controlled the stammer and replaced it with silences. And I suppose he'd also have had his writer avoid any particularly difficult words or expressions.
I believe he acquired his stammer in childhood, from being bullied partly by his father and partly by a private tutor.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 121
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Richard and Leanne,
I think that will make for a very interesting read. No two people agree on everything, as a search of this board will show. Presenting differing views, when the occur, can be a very useful way of demonstrating that conclusions are certainly not universally accepted. With that style in mind, I think your efforts would be greatly rewarded by indicating the aspects where your own view, individually or combined, differ from other researches. Also, of course, it's useful to round this out with indicating where your conclusions are in agreement with others. For example, there's nothing wrong in mentioning the "grave spitting" so long as the reader is aware that this particular anecdote is not widely accepted. If you present it as "an interesting story of an unverified event" and that "in general it is not considered reliable", however, you've done your job of ensuring the reader has enough information upon which to base their own conclusions. Which may, or may not, agree with the ones you present.
It is this balance of presentation that is, unfortunately, greatly lacking in a lot of True Crime books, the Ripper case especially. I'm quite interested in seeing your final result as it sounds like you are trying to achieve such a goal. I may not agree with your conclusions on all counts, but I will praise any efforts that do not try and "mislead by ommission", which is the most common form of disception in the Ripper literature I'm afraid. Hmmmm, perhaps I'm being harsh; marking too many student essays I think! ha!
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 469
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Richard and Leanne,
I have no doubts whatsoever that your book will be interesting and the fact that you both don't agree with each other on everything (which I think have been evident a few times here on the board) I believe will be to the book's advantage. I can only repeat what Jeff said; although I probably may not agree with your conclusions, I still think it will turn out to be a promising read nevertheless (and I have no doubt that your findings will lead to even further debate, which of course is a good thing).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 759
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 9:51 pm: |
|
G'day,
I understand by reading some peoples posts, that there exists a lack of knowledge of the exact meaning of the words: 'echolalia', and 'schizophrenia.' Below are a few things that I found after a search:
'"Schizophrenia" 'was first coined in 1911 by a Swiss psycholgist'.
* 'In 1878 Emil Kraepelin termed schizophrenia: "dementia praecex", meaning "dementia of early onset".
* 'A significant proportion of individuals diagnosed as schizophrenic do not show symptoms until very late in life.'
DEFINITIONS:
ECHOLALIA: - 'a multi-membered pop group based in northern london, England.'
- 'is where a patient automatically repeats what the interviewer says.'
- 'parot-like repetition of overheard words.'
- 'imitations of sounds without comprehension of their meaning. Normal in children but abnormal in adults.'
STUTTERING: - 'is a speech problem in which the smooth timing of individual words is interupted: (ie. "I lost - I lost my sock." or "I lost um sock")'
- 'There is no evidence to suggest that people who stutter are any more anxious or depressed than people who do not stutter.'
STAMMER:- 'A speech disorder involving hesitations and involuntary repetitions of certain sounds: (ie. "s-s-s-sock".)
LEANNE
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 122
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 12:26 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Nice find. As you can probably see now, what the one newspaper reports about Barnett's speach (repeating the last word of a question before answering it fully) hardly counts as echolalia.
The "repition" they are talking about is not just "repeat a word then go on to produce fluent replies". The repition is pretty much all they do, parrot back a question. They don't give normal answers, as Barnett did (see inquest testimony). So you can see, even the one newspaper report about "last word repeating" is nothing like evidence of "echolalia".
Stuttering and stammering are commonly used interchangably. I would expect a newspaper article to reflect this common usage. So basically we have 2 papers that suggest Barnett had a stutter or a stammer during testimony, one that he repeated the last word from the end of a question before answering it. And nowhere else is there any indication that Barnett had a speech imediment of any sorts.
Given all this, we could suggest that Barnett was probably nervous during his testimony. If he actually did repeat the last words from some questions (or all if you like) this may have been simply to calm his nerves. Andrew gave a good example of how this might reflect a form of "pause while thinking".
His stutter/stammer might also be simply nerves as well, and not necessarily something he normally had. Since nowhere is it reported that he usually had any kind of speech impediment, these kinds of explanations are both reasonable and quite plausible; very probable even, since we have nothing else to go on.
Anyway, as you can see, the definitions of "echolalia" correspond to the examples I gave you earlier. Parrotting back a question, rather than answering. Barnett did not do that.
Hopefully this will put to rest the whole myth of echolalia.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 760
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 1:17 am: |
|
Jeff,
No sorry, but it wont put a rest to this! Don't you know that there were so many newspapers in London at the time, that they pinched most of their stuff from other newspapers, or got details from the 'Cental News Agency', then chose to publish the details they saw relevant to the subject! They didn't all send reporters to the inquest! That is why this seemily minor detail was ommitted form many reports!
Why did you ignore the bit I found that said: 'There is no evidence to suggest that people who stutter are any more anxious or depressed than people who do not stutter.'?
Why on earth would any newspaper mention it, if it didn't happen? The story was about Mary Kelly?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 999
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 4:14 am: |
|
Leanne, when this came up a few months ago Diana said that she worked with autistic children who displayed echolalia, so it may be worthwhile sending her a private email.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 475
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 6:09 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
"A significant proportion of individuals diagnosed as schizophrenic do not show symptoms until very late in life."
That quote is today totally unvalid. I know people who work in the psychiatric care and they have told me about patients with that diagnosis and who is in their late twenties and in their thirties (and who gets totally uncontrollable if they don't take their medicin). Regarding the two persons I know personally, one is 32 and the other is 39. They both bear signs of extreme character when they're at their worst.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 87
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 7:08 am: |
|
My brother was 17 when he was diagnosed. The doctors told us then that there were two "danger times" when symptoms start to show themselves and these are late teens and late thirties to early forties. Obviously that's not a hard and fast rule though and the condition can become evident at any age, but those two age zones are the most common. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 8:24 am: |
|
G'day,
That quote, (which I got from the Internet), about symptoms showing up 'very late in life', doesn't appear 'totally' invalid. It has to change just one word: 'very'. The point is that schizophrenia can start to show at any point in a sufferers lifetime. And in 1888, no one knew about it!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 479
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
It doesen't matter if anybody knew about schizofrenia in 1888 and were able to diagose it. What matters is that the illness existed nevertheless. I don't demand that the term "schizofrenia" should be mentioned in the records, but I do believe that the symptoms of what we today recognize as schizofrenia should be noted somewhere if Barnett showed signs of them (due to their sometimes extreme nature), even if there was no knowledge of how to diagose them.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 123
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Sorry, I didn't ingnor the section saying 'There is no evidence to suggest that people who stutter are any more anxious or depressed than people who do not stutter.'?. That quote is completely in line with what I was saying, and fail to see how you've come up with the idea that I ignored it? It's just letting you know that if Joe had a stutter/stammer, he's not likely to suffer any other mental disorder (like depression or anxiety) because of it? So what? That's what I said earlier.
The only thing I said that might relate is that Joe might have stuttered at the inquest because he was nervous even if he normally did not have a stutter. Under such situations we're not talking about someone with a speach impediment at all. Just because momentary emotional states (like nervousness) can result in stuttering in normal speaking people (or increase the severity in someone with a speach impediment), however, is not the same as "stuttering causing a disorder like clinical depression or clinical axiety". The former typically occurs, the latter typically does not.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 4:17 pm: |
|
G'day,
Glenn: Thismornings research has told me that symptoms involve: 'thought, perception, emotion, movement and behaviour'. Onset can be sudden or develope slowly, characterized by emotional withdrawl and diminishing social drive.
It would be better to discuss whether 'Jack the Ripper' could have suffered it. Don't worry, it doesn't play a part in Richard's and my book. Bruce Paley just mentioned it in a few lines, and now I know why he didn't bother pushing that suggestion. Shall we leave it?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 764
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 4:22 pm: |
|
G'day Jeff,
That quote is saying that Barnett couldn't have stuttered simply because he was upset and depressed. That's obviously what everyone thought in 1888!
People stuttering when they are upset, seems to have came from watching cartoons IMHO!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 124
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Leanne,
The quote does not mean that, and you've misinterpreted it if you think so. People who are nervous will stutter and stammer in their speach. However, if this is the only time in which this happens, they do not have a speach impediment, meaning "they do not have a stutter" in the clinical sense.
All the quote is saying is that if someone has a speach impediment, like stuttering or stammering, then this speach impediment is not by itself likely to put them at risk of suffering from clinical depression or clinical anxiety. It's not a "risk factor".
To try and twist that statement into proof that people don't stutter and stammer when they are nervous, or stressed, is wrong. Watch any person who is not used to public speaking whey they have to speak in front of a large crowd of people, and you will see just how incorrect such a conclusion is.
I've watched a lot of student presentations, in small classes, in large classes, at conferences, and this is exactly what happens. I'm acutally surprised by the few that don't. I think they would be pretty amused at being called "cartoons".
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 6:01 pm: |
|
G'day Jeff,
Ok, I still can't interpret it your way, and I think we should leave it. As I said Barnett's speech doesn't play a big roll in our book!
I think it gets a mention, as a description of how he delivered his testimony according to some newspapers.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 481
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
"It would be better to discuss whether 'Jack the Ripper' could have suffered it."
Absolutely, I agree. That's what I did in my earlier posts some days back. But I thought you argued that Barnett was Jack the Ripper - since I believe Jack the Ripper was a paranoid schizofrenic, and you stress Barnett as a Ripper suspect, I wanted to see if there were signs of this illness in Barnett's case. That's how the whole discussion started.
I now see that there obviously wasn't any such signs. I for my part am not that interested in the stuttering, stammering or echolalia -- that can have many explanations. For the record, I hav absolutely no idea what you mean with the "symptoms" 'thought, perception, emotion, movement and behaviour' anyway. So let's leave it at that - we won't get any further anyway.
I do know that some of these poor people can get extremely violent and have morbid hallucinations, also at a young age (and become dangerous not only for others but also for themselves). But all symptoms are naturally individual. I'm not saying that Jack the Ripper would have "heard voices", but I think he had similar mental problems -- and that paranoid features played a major role to his character and perception world.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 767
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 11:13 pm: |
|
G'day Glenn,
Have a read of this and see if you think the Ripper could have suffered this. Forget Barnett!
http://www.tmhc.nsw.gov.au/translations/ltmh4.htm
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 126
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 12:16 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
That's not a bad page summarising schizophrenia. It's a bit minimal, but it contains good snippits. And, importantly, it points out that violence is not usual, but not unheard of.
Other common characteristics (though this is not universal by any stretch of the immagination) is a lack of personal cleanliness. As the delusions and hallucinations become more profound, the person will often retreat into their own private world. This quite often results in a lack of personal care. Most often, the "violence" appears to reflect fear and stress, which is probably not surprising if you believe the world is out to get you, you hear voices or see things other people cannot, the voices are very rarely saying nice things, and in general, one finds it hard to deal with all the sensory information that is surrounding them. It's hardly surprising that such individuals will occaisonally have outbursts of anger, thrown things, etc.
It's a highly debilitating disorder. Medication helps many, but not all. And even those it does help, it's not a cure and has some pretty horrible side effects for some.
Unfortunately, sometimes the hallucinations and delusions are of a nature that make the person believe they have a mission to perform and this mission involves violence against some perceived threat. In these cases, where murders occur, they are often disorganised in many ways (due to the illness making planning difficult), but they may have some planning involved (as a result of the "mission" aspect of things).
In other words, the Jack the Ripper murders could very well have been committed by someone suffering from Schizophrenia. "Jack" does not necessarily have to be schizophenic, of course, but haveing such a disorder would not rule out a suspect.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 1:47 am: |
|
G'day Jeff,
Exactly, it says that 'MOST people with schizophrenia are not violent', MOST!
Then it says: 'This aggression is rarely seen by strangers...', that may explain why nobody seemed to dob the right one in. He, (who-ever), may have seemed harmless to those who knew him.
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 147
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 3:29 am: |
|
Leanne, for those who are schitzophrenic with paranoid dilusions, they isolate themselves from the crowd as they believe someone is out to get them, and for the most part these behaviors go unnoticed until the person snaps and kills out of what they see as self defense. Its a preemptive strike to remove the threat before it harms them.
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 485
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Thank you for the link. It was indeed interesting and informative.
It also confirmed what I already knew about the illness and I also think it corresponds with mine and others Jack the Ripper profile splendidly - in every detail. The additional points that Jeff states, particulary the one about lack of personal care, I also put into the profile as well and that I have myself seen on some of those who don't get help or personal aid.
Regarding the "dangerous" bit, I must raise a few question marks. Well, of course the ones that becomes really dangerous are probably a minority, but I don't think it is that unusual as the article want to indicate. Most of the violent knife deeds or murders done here in Sweden during the last three years are committed by persons who has been diagosed with some sort of schizofrenia with paranoid features, and this crime tendency has increased quite a bit these recent years, corresponding with the break-down of the psychological care.
So yes, I can't be sure and I have no evidence, but I personally believe that this is ol' Jacky in a nut shell, Leanne.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 127
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
The schizophrenics who can carry out a violent plan will not (generally) be those who are so delusional that they can't function to some degree. They have to be able to carry out some sort of plann (even one as simple as remembering to carry around their knife, or to stay near the area where their targets are). Unfortunately, that means when patients are "cured through budget cuts", the ones that get released are the ones who are highest functioning. So, even if the number of schizophrenics who are violently inclinde is low, they make up a larger than normal proportion of the ones likely to get released (unless, of course, their violent tendencies are already known). Anyway, they still aren't the majority. But, when such individuals do commit their particular crime, the press has a field day because both the crime and the criminal tend to be both very "newsworthy". Both are usually strange in a lot of ways.
Media people know that when a dog bites a man, it's not news, but when a man bites a dog it is news. Since only "Man bites dog" stories get media attention, however, doesn't mean we should assume men bite dogs more often then dogs bite men!
So, all I'm saying is that the proportion of schizophrenics that are violent in these ways is low, but when it happens we do hear about it more often than not. That will artificially inflate our perception of just how violent schizophrenics are in general.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 488
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Yes, but we are not talking about schizofrenics in general here. We are talking about a sub-group which are paranoid schizofrenics, and they are the ones that gets violent in most cases - there are no real reason to believe that the others should turn into violent lunatics. I am not labelling schizofrenics in general as violent maniacs here, I want to make that clear. And it's no secret that some of these actually can manage to look or live in a relatively functional manner at some points, but have attacks where the sickness gets them uncontrolled during spells, like religious mania, hearing voices, having hallucinations, seeing threats that doesen't exists etc. They are usually not sick to the same extent all the time.
I think, what I've heard here in Sweden from scientists in psychiatric care, is that ten percent of recent deadly violent crimes are performed by some kind of paranoid schizofrenics, the majority of the remaining percents are done by violent people with anti-social and psychopathic disorders. This statistics doesen't involve schizofrenics in general, but merely the ones with paranoid tendensies.
The reasons for them appearing more evident in the media or statistics are not so much because of their news value as of the fact that it's first now we see the real results of the break-down of the psychiatric care in Sweden and other places.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 6:31 pm: |
|
G'day,
If we're going to start talking about the chances of the Ripper suffering from schizophrenia, then maybe we should start a new message board! I'll start one on General discussion.
LEANNE |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 12:28 pm: |
|
"...I do think that is a very strange statement, coming from a contributor that "lays his energy" on posting all kinds of weird messages that on many occasions have appeared to be quite incomprehensible and pointless..."
>>Here we behold once again the stubborn refusal to adopt critically estimable logical methodology in Ripperology, this time expressed in terms of a fallacious ad hominem digression from the point under discussion. Nothing you say can absolve you from your fundamental logical requirement of avoiding the piling up of assumptions that you don't at some point justify by confirmatory opposition within the known factual evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to accept your lengthy, wistfully generated list as knowledge. Once you start giving us your assumptions list, you become responsible for showing exactly how and why the list is justified, by reference straight into the case facts point-for-point, or else you've abandoned reason in favor of mere embellishment, period. Please forgive me for pointing out that this practice is exactly the same mismanagement of facts practiced over the previous 100+ years of inadequate Ripperology. Perhaps your set of assumptions about the murderer constitutes a kind of history of murderers, but if you want to be taken seriously, you must show clearly how it relates to the Whitechapel murders.
Saddam |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 3:20 am: |
|
Leanne wrote: 'There is no evidence to suggest that people who stutter are any more anxious or depressed than people who do not stutter.'
I don't know where you got that information, but I think that's refering to people who stutter constantly, not stress-induced instances. If it's meant to be for occasional cases, your source is mistaken.
As Jeff says, some stammering and stuttering is normal under the stress of public speaking. In fact, much worse cases can be solely stress induced as well.
I don't have any sort of speech impediment normally but have had a few instances of severe stuttering. One was in speaking to someone about the first girl I ever dated and how she didn't like me and I didn't know why, and the other two were when I was telling someone about recent deaths.
I've also seen it suddenly happen to other people under stress, usually related to grief and psychological trauma.
So if the only reports we have of Barnett stuttering are after the murder when he talked about it, well, color me unsuprised. That certainly would not be any indication that he was normally mentally dysfunctional. |
Erin Sigler
Police Constable
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 12:29 am: |
|
Given the content of this thread, I thought it might be useful to dig out my copy of the DSM-IV so as to clarify the precise meanings of some of the terms that have been bandied about here lately.
First of all, according to the DSM, the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia are as follows:
A. Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated):
1. delusions
2. hallucinations
3. disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence)
4. grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
5. negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition
Note: Only one Criterion A symptom is required if delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the person's behavior or thoughts, or two or more voices conversing with each other.
B. Social occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset (or when the onset is in childhood or adolesence, failure to achieve expected level of interpersonal, academic, or occupational achievement).
C. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least 6 months. This 6-month period must include at least 1 month of symptoms (or less if successfully treated) that meet Criterion A (i.e., active-phase symptoms) and may include periods of prodromal or residual symptoms. During these prodromal or residual periods, the signs of the disturbance may be manifested by only negative symptoms or two or more symptoms listed in Criterion A present in an attenuated form (e.g., odd beliefs, unusual perceptual experiences).
D. Schizoaffective and Mood Disorder exclusion: Schizoaffective Disorder and Mood Disorder with Psychotic Features have been ruled out because either (1) no Major Depressive, Manic, or Mixed Episodes have occurred concurrently with the active-phase symptoms; or (2) if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods.
E. Substance/general/medical condition exclusion: The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.
F. Relationship to a Pervasive Developmental Disorder: If there is a history of Autistic Disorder or another Pervasive Developmental Disorder, the additional diagnosis of Schizophrenia is made only if prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present for at least a month (or less if successfully treated).
I'm not quite finished, so please bear with me just a little longer! There are several subtypes of schizophrenia: Paranoid Type, Disorganized Type, Catatonic Type, Undifferentiated Type, and Residual Type. The ones that concern us at this time are the Paranoid, Catatonic, and Disorganized Types, so I will not go into great detail about the others.
According to the DSM, a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia is made when the following conditions are met:
1. Preoccupation with one or more delusions or frequent auditory hallucinations;
2. None of the following is prominent: disorganized speech, disorganized or catatonic behavior, or flat or inappropriate affect. While it is true that when schizophrenics commit violent crimes, they are usually of this type, it must be stressed that violent, criminal behavior among schizophrenics is quite rare.
In the Disorganized type, disorganized speech, behavior, and flat affect are the most prominent characteristics. "The disorganized speech," says the DSM, "may be accompanied by silliness and laughter that are not closely related to the content of the speech. The behavioral disorganization (i.e., lack of goal orientation) may lead to severe disruption in the ability to perform activities of daily living (e.g., showering, dressing, or preparing meals).
It is in the Catatonic form of schizophrenia that the condition known as echolalia occurs. The DSM defines echolalia as "the pathological, parrotlike, and apparently senseless repetitive imitation of a word or phrase just spoken by another person." However, in order for a diagnosis of catatonic schizophrenia to be made, two of the following characteristics must be dominant:
1. motoric immobility as evidenced by catalepsy (including waxy flexibility) or stupor;
2. excessive motor activity (that is apparently purposeless and not influenced by external stimuli);
3. extreme negativism (an apparently motiveless resistance to all instructions or maintenance of a rigid posture against attempts to be moved) or mutism;
4. pecularities of voluntary movement as evidenced by posturing (voluntary assumption of inappropriate or bizarre postures), stereotyped movements, prominent mannerisms, or prominent grimacing;
5. echolalia or echopraxia [imitation of movements].
So as you can see, it takes much more than a supposed case of echolalia to diagnose someone as schizophrenic. This is particularly true when attempting to place someone into the Paranoid category, since echolalia is not a prominent feature of this subtype. Furthermore, it should be noted that catatonic schizophrenics are quite often totally immobile and cannot function well in society (such as holding down a job, or forming and maintaining personal relationships). I've heard of catatonics that can sit in a chair and remain frozen in the same position (even if it is an uncomfortable one) for days, without speaking or even acknowledging the presence of others. Now, to my mind, a better example of a catatonic schizophrenic would be Aaron Kosminski by the time he was transferred to Leavesden. Of course, I'm not a mental health professional, but I have read extensively on the subject, so feel free to dispute these conclusions as you see fit. I will check with my close friend, who was a psychiatric social worker for 15 years and frequently encountered schizophrenics when she worked at a local mental institution, as to the accuracy of my statements, and if anything is amiss, I will certainly make you all aware of it. I've been known to be wrong a time or two (lol), and I'm not afraid to admit it!   |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 772
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 7:51 am: |
|
G'day,
STUTTERING:
CORONER: "Did you and her drink together?"
BARNETT: "Uuummm Nnno. She was quite ssssober..."
ECHOLALIA:
CORONER: "Did you and her drink together?"
BARNETT: "Drink together?....No. She was quite sober..."}
In 1888 they knew very little about speech impediments and underlying psychological disorders. Two newspapers told that he stuttered, one said he stammered and one chose to describe his testimony in more detail, by saying that he repeated the last words of EVERY question. No other newspaper bothered.
'Schizophrenia affects both men and women. It USUALLY first appears between the ages of 16-20 in men and 20-30 in women. The speed of onset of schizophrenia VARIES GREATLY.' Joseph Barnett met Mary Kelly when he was 29, and at that age he MAY HAVE started to display signs. MAY HAVE. But we have no written proof either way, so lets just leave it.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 495
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 8:00 am: |
|
Quite right, Leanne. Thanks for moving over the discussion.
------------------
Hi Erin,
Thank you very much for your great contribution. This discussion is continuing on General Discussion thread - SCHIZOFRENIC JACK?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
What happened that night hinges on three variables: 1) Was Mary worried enough about the rent to do something? 2) Did Mary get enough money from Blotchy Face to mollify McCarthy? 3) Was Hutchinson telling the truth? The decision chart I created does not answer these but shows how they interlock. |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Perhaps this thread is the correct place to discuss the lighting in Millers court.
Was the witness in a position to clearly see Blotchy face.The court,in the words of another witness,was completely dark,and although this darkness was observed at about half past one,perhaps it had not been lit at all that night,or it was extinguished at some time.
Could it have been deliberately extinguished?.Possibly,it was easy to do so,but other means may have been responsible.A burnt out gas mantle or the effects of the inclement weather,or the gas lighter had given it a miss.
So was a wrong description given of the midnight visitor?. |
|
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
Mary Kelly Decision Chart