|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 421
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 5:04 pm: |       |
Leanne,
I realise schizophrenia wasn't a term in 1888. That doesn't mean the disorder didn't exist, only that there wasn't a name for it. However, now we do have a term for this collection of mental disorders, and with sufficient information about a mental patient from the Victorian era, one can recognise the symptoms of that disorder.
In other words, David Cohen might now be recognised as suffering from schizophrenia even if in 1888 the disorder was not recognised or named. So, when John Douglas suggests the Ripper suffered from schizophrenia in his profile, then he's suggesting we prioritise suspects from 1888 who show such symptoms. Obviously, we aren't going to find a diagnosis of schizophrenia for the reasons you mention. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Also, you're confusing a normal stuttering instance (a symptom) with a disorder (the speech impediment called stuttering) again.
Let me try one more time on this one. Being nervous might cause one to trip over their words when speaking. Watch anyone giving a public speach who is not used to public speaking, and they will not speak in their normal, smooth flowing, voice. There could be a tremor in their speach, they may stumble over phonemes, repeat words, stick in things like "ummm" and "ahhh" a lot, repeat a word between pauses (like repeatedly saying "ok"), they may hesitate and repeat a phoneme, etc. Some, any, and all of these can occur, pending on the individual, how nervous and stressed they are about public speaking, but that does not mean the person has a "speach disorder". It means they are nervous.
If, however, the person has these sorts of speach disruptions in the absense of a stressful situation, and these things occur quite frequently, then the person probably has a speech disorder of some sort.
If our person is of the 2nd type, then the disorder was probably not due to them being nervous at some point in the past. Being nervous, or stressed, at one point in time does not cause a person to then develope a speach disorder that affects them after the nervousness/stress is gone.
You don't "get a disorder" from stress or nerves, but you might show similar speach disruptions as someone with the disorder when stressed or nervous. In otherwords, many people stutter when stressed or nervous, but that by itself does not mean they have the speach disorder called "a stutter".
By analogy, people cannot see in the dark, but that doesn't mean they are blind. And someone who is blind didn't have their blindness caused simply because they were the dark at one point.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:19 pm: | |
G'day,
GLENN: No I DO NOT take Barnett's stuttering as evidence of anything!!! Bruce Paley suggested in his book, that it was possibly pointed to some underlying condition. Can you prove that Barnett didn't stutter during his police interview?
SARAH: I can't answer your question. Maybe a doctor can. I got the above information straight from Websites on the subject of Stuttering. I didn't make any of it up!!!!
ALLY: Who are you to call me ignorant!!! I repeat: I GOT THE ABOVE INFORMATION FROM WEBSITES!
YES PLEASE: get the head of the COSD department to write to those Websites! They are polluting the world's mind on the sugbject!
JEFF: OH JEFF! I know schizophrenia existed at the time, but doctors didn't recognize it as a treatable condition. Psychology still had a long way to go to be understood the way it is today.
Douglas didn't suggest the Ripper suffered schizophrenia!!!! Douglas gave the example of 'such as a speech impediment', when he described a psychologically crippling condition that wasn't severe.
LEANNE |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 185
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:33 pm: | |
Leanne,
You are ignoring the differences between individual cases of stuttering and stuttering as a constant disorder.
You are taking an isolated case of alleged and unproven stuttering under extreme stress and trying to hype into a lifelong dysfunction with absolutely no evidence to support that conclusion.
The fact that you want to a website and misread what it said does not change things. And, as far as that goes, in case you haven't noticed, the web is full of inaccurate statements. Saying you got it off a website is perhaps the weakest support you could have for a statement.
Any number of people here over the past year and probably longer have pointed out your mistake on this, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
I've had isolated cases of stuttering brought on by stress. If what you are saying is true, that stress can't cause stuttering, then I must actually have had a stuttering disorder all my life and just not known it, and my students and supervisors while I spent four years training tech classes 8 hours a day decided to never tell me about it, and so forth.
Chronic and constant stuttering as a speech impediment is not believed by some experts to be caused by intense stress in a person's life before the chronic stuttering started. (Although it wouldn't surprise me if other experts say the opposite.) Individual instances of stuttering can and often are caused by stress.
There is absolutely nothing to support the idea that Barnett had a speech impediment.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Howard Brown
Police Constable
Username: Howard
Post Number: 5
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
"some people label the symptoms as stuttering regardless of the different etiologies.- Ms.Reineke,from above.
No offense,Ms. Perry,but this is indisputable.
Ms.Perry,just out of curiosity,and no offense meant,this stuttering seems seminal to your suspect's culpability. Is this correct? Thank you... |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:46 pm: | |
Leanne,
"Can you prove that Barnett didn't stutter during his police interview?"
You are totally missing my point, although I made pain-staking efforts to be as clear as possible.
Read my lips: IT DOESEN'T MATTER whether or not Barnett did stutter or had a speech impediment.
Why? Because it doesen't tell us anything!!!!!!!!!!
If it's possible for stuttering to be launched by stress, then the situation in itself -- with your (former?) girlfriend being fileted beyond recognition in the most gruesome manner, and then yourself being taken in for questioning by the police -- would be considered as rather stressful also for an innocent person.
It definitely can not be taken as a sign of Barnett's guilt if he stuttered during the police interrogation. Even a five year old can understand this.
Therefore the whole point and hellraising regarding Barnett's stuttering or alleged speech impediment is pointless and redundant.
If you were taken in for questioning by the police in 1888, after a crime like this, you would probably stutter as well -- innocent or guilty.
It doesen't tell us anything!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 677
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:56 pm: | |
Leanne,
I didn't say you were ignorant in entirety. I said you were choosing to remain ignorant on this particular subject. And no, I sincerely doubt that anyone needs to write to those websites because they aren't wrong. They just assume that people aren't completely stupid and will realize that they are talking about stuttering as a disorder not the type of disfluency exhibited by regular people.
And as Dan does point out, continuing to insist that you are right because you read it on a website is more of a statement to ignorance than anything I could say...there is plenty of completely inaccurate information out there and if you choose to swallow the completely false or misinterept what is there, that is entirely your fault. Several dozen examples have been provided that prove you are wrong but you stubbornly refuse to accept it. Oh well.
Why Howard!
Long time no see. And how have you been? I must say I do prefer to be called Queen Mean or "Girlfiend". Thank your pal for that one will you? I have yet to pass on my regards for providing me with one of my all time favorite handles. I do hope to see you in the chat sometime to catch up. You will find me in under one of those two nicks. Ciao! 
(Message edited by Ally on July 29, 2004)
 |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 422
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 9:58 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
As I mentioned, in JD's book (The Cases that Haunt Us), Douglas suggests the Ripper was someone very much like David Cohen.
Now, since the David Cohen in question is known as a violent, out of control, manic, schizophrenic, it goes to reason that John Douglas's profile of the Ripper includes by example the traits of "violent, out of control, manic, and schizophrenic". And, since David Cohen wasn't necessarily displaying any of these traits 24 hours and 7 days a week, then JD's profile isn't suggesting the Ripper must have been 24/7 evil loony tunes. However, since David Cohen publicly displayed such outbursts (in hospital), John Douglas's profile can be said to include the idea that the Ripper wasn't someone would could always control their violent outbursts. So, apart from the murders themselves, JD's profile suggests that to fit his profile one must be able to demonstrate that the suspect was someone who became violent when they lost their temper. To date, nobody has shown this to be a trait of Joe Barnett; nor have they shown him to be manic, out of control, or schizophrenic on any occasion. Joe Barnett is very much unlike David Cohen, and therefore very much unlike the person John Douglas profiles as the Ripper.
In other words, even if Douglas does not use the word "schizophrenic" specifically (which he might, I just can't check as the book is at home), his profile does put someone probably suffering from schizophrenia forward as typifying the kind of suspect he would place high on his priority list while Joe Barnett he would place near the bottom (he rules out Joe specifically after all). Since his priority list puts you "high" if you match, and low if you don't, Joe cannot in any way be said to match John Douglas's profile.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 423
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:20 pm: | |
Leanne,
You're asking Glenn to prove Joe didn't stutter during his interview. The interview is impossible to make any claims about since the entire interview is missing. Even if it weren't, any record of it would be a written one. Unlikely they would write down a stutter, even if he did stutter. Note, none of the records of the inquest testitmony suggest Barnett stuttered, it's only because two newspapers suggested he did that we're even talking about speech impediments.
Regardless, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Joe did stutter at the interview, and more importantly, to prove that Joe did stutter when he wasn't in a situation that could be construed as a nervous one. Most people do not have a stutter (a speech disorder), while it is not uncommon for people to stutter when nervous (normal speech disruptions rather than a continuous speech disorder). You're pushing for the rare condition (has a speech disorder) when there is no evidence to suggest it (speech disruptions at the inquest can easily be attributed to nerves - which would mean Joe didn't have a stutter).
It's like me asking you to prove that Joe didn't have a large monkey with him at the interview. Can you "prove" he didn't? No. Despite how ridiculous this claim may be, you can't actually prove he didn't have said large monkey. I can always claim "it just wasn't mentioned".
Now, can I prove he did have this alledged monkey? No.
So, who do we believe?
Well, it's rare for people to have large monkeys. That means the burden of proof is on me. So, although it's possible that Joe had a large monkey with him, it's so improbable that before anyone can be expected to take the suggestion seriously I would have to offer some real proof that allows me to deduce the existence of this monkey, otherwise, we go with the inference that Joe didn't have a large monkey.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 1:02 am: | |
G'day,
I just saw the words: 'Sudden Infant Death Syndrome' mentioned in the same paper as the words: 'stress' and 'stutter'. Does that mean that it is telling me that stuttering is caused by S.I.D.S or that S.I.D.S. is caused by stuttering?
Barnett's stuttering IS NOT MENTIONED IN MY BOOK. Bruce Paley mentioned it in his, but I don't even think that it is needed to strengthen the case against him!
DAN: I DID NOT MISREAD ANYTHING! I AM NOT IGNORING ANYONE! Let me explain myself this way:
A friend of mine is moving from Sydney to somewhere on the south coast of N.S.W., because his two young daughters suffer from asthma that is agrivated by city humidity in Sydney. That does not mean that asthma is CAUSED by humidity! Asthma is AGRIVATED by humidity! Even a five year old can understand that!!! Why can't you???
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 1:45 am: | |
G'day,
QUESTION: "Does stuttering have to do with psychological stress?"
EXPERT: Stuttering OR STAMMERING) is of two types, developmental and acquired. Acquired stuttering may follow A HEAD INJURY OR OTHER BRAIN LESION, SUCH AS A STROKE. Developmental stuttering is much more common, and does seem to be INFLUENCED BUT PROBABLY NOT CAUSE BY stress or Anxiety.
http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1030998a.html
Where's the proof that Joseph Barnett had a stroke before Mary's murder?
LEANNE
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 187
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 2:10 am: | |
Leanne,
You aren't making sense. Let's go by your statement that asthma isn't caused by humidity.
Now, if someone couldn't breathe right on one specific occasion, are you going to assume that they have asthma? What if we know that this specific occasion was one in which normal people usually don't breathe right? Maybe we know there is some chemical in the air, they are on a mountain top where the air is thin, or they just got done running a marathon? Are you going to assume shortness of breath on one specific occasion with a perfectly good other explanation means someone is asthmatic?
And the problem with your latest quote about stuttering is that it is STILL only talking about the chronic disorders, and not isolated cases of tripping over the tongue that might be called stuttering but doesn't raise to a level of a disorder.
In order for that quote to have any relevance to this discussion, you'd need to prove that the behavior Barnett allegedly exhibited qualified for either of the two types of stuttering that expert is talking about. You don't have any proof. You have an assumption you'd like to be true in order to try to fit your suspect up for a profile that the profiler himself says he doesn't fit.
Depression is a related concept. If someone close to you gets killed, you might be suffering an isolated case of depression. But that doesn't necessarily mean you have the disorder of Depression. You could be environmentally depressed for good reason unrelated to a chronic problem.
Similarly, not being able to see because the lights are out means you are temporarily blind, but it doesn't mean that you are BLIND.
One case of not talking quite so well is not the same thing as being a lifelong stutterer.
Please tell me that this is sinking in...
(Message edited by dannorder on July 30, 2004)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 5:12 am: | |
Leanne,
I'm not saying you're making it up but it is possible to stutter and no have a disorder, I know I certainly don't. I only very occasionally stutter under stress and only when under stress.
I'm not trying to argue here or insult you in any way, I'm just saying that there is the disorder of stuttering (which is what the websites you show talk about) and then the natural occasional stuttering that occurs purely in stressful situations. Yes, the disorder isn't caused by stress but the natural one that happens to most people from time to time usually occurs under stress.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
G'day Dan,
Just say I was the owner of a factory that used a certain chemical. If someone applying for a job couldn't breath properly in my factory, (yet had no problems in other environments), I would suggest that they get tested for an allergic reaction to that chemical, before giving them a job in that place.
If the person was found to be allergic to that particular chemical, it wouldn't be the chemicals fault, it would be person's genetic makeup. I wouldn't give the person the job, rather than stop using the chemical.
This debate is going to go around and around in circles. I wish Bruce Paley had never suggested it!
LEANNE |
Howard Brown
Police Constable
Username: Howard
Post Number: 6
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
Barnett's stuttering IS NOT MENTIONED IN MY BOOK. Bruce Paley mentioned it in his, but I don't even think that it is needed to strengthen the case against him! -from Ms.Perry in an above post.
Without directly answering my question,you seem to have indirectly.
Again,not to appear like I am hassling you, the reason I asked this question has less to do with a physical condition your preferred suspect has, but in a broader sense,it seems that people often ascribe characteristics to their suspect [ D'onston,Barnett,LaBruckman* ]that really are peripheral to their assumed guilt. When "confronted" with the fact that this condition,characteristic,or handed-down-from the-ancients etched in stone perception is probably wrong and really wasn't needed in the first place to convince the perciever, the perciever shrugs it off after much defensive argument.
Of course,Ms. Perry,you are not alone in doing this. You certainly have the right to feel the way you do. Again,since this thread is devoted to a "circumstantial" bits of "evidence", we could take Barnett's name out of the mix and place,for example,Maybrick's "funny little word games", LaBruckman's "delight" in eviscerating sick,but live,cattle{ which is the perception of people who he ostensibly didn't appeal to } and on and on...
Thanks for your time.
* LaBruckman is covered by Wolf Vanderlinden in this months' excellent Ripper Notes. Terrific research.
Ally.......ally is well. Thanks for the invite....
(Message edited by howard on July 30, 2004) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 679
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Leanne,
Once again you are talking about people who suffer from the disorder of stuttering and not everyday people. What's so hard about THAT for you to understand?
Let's put it this way. Coughing and wheezing is a sympton of asthma. People who have asthma cough and wheeze but not everyone who coughs and wheezes occasionally has asthma. Yet asthma can be diagnosed by looking at a person who coughs and wheezes all the time. There is no "asthma test" if you cough and wheeze more than is normal, you have asthma. People who suffer from stuttering on a daily basis more than is normal have a stuttering DISORDER. But everyone stutters once in a while regardless of whether they have the disorder. Not everyone who wheezes once in a while has asthma, not everyone who stutters once in a while is a stutterer. The problem is AS POINTED OUT IN MY TEXT MATERIAL ABOVE..is that people use the same term to apply to different problems or in the case of stuttering the disease has been named by a symptom. If asthma was called Wheezing instead, why then everyone in the world would have it wouldn't they?
The texts and resources being used to teaching courses on this agree with this. So why are you conveniently ignoring the resources I have provided and continuing to go back to your websites created for people who have the DISORDER?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1919
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Leanne wrote:
"Barnett's stuttering IS NOT MENTIONED IN MY BOOK. Bruce Paley mentioned it in his, but I don't even think that it is needed to strengthen the case against him!"
So why bother???????
Why then, do you on these Boards insist on presenting it as one of the things pointing at Barnett's guilt, claiming that his stuttering is a sign of guilty behaviour? What's the point?
Because it isn't!
That you choose to ignore the simple fact that it shows nothing even if he did stutter doesen't help your case.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
I do not 'insist on presenting it as one of the things pointing at Barnett's guilt'. I wasn't the one who dug the subject out of it's grave.
OK let's bury it again! I wont respond to any more 'I'm right/you're wrong' posts.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 424
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
Leanne,
People aren't that concerned about if you include the "stuttering" in your book so much as the apparent confusion you are making between normal, everyday, speech disruptions that occur when someone is nervous and/or stressed which is called stuttering and the speech disorder called by the same name (stuttering) but which is not directly caused by nervousness and/or stress though it may be magnified by such things. (My, now that's a long sentence! ha!).
You've been posting information you've found on websites that says stuttering is not caused by nervousness and/or stress. But those websites are talking about the speech disorder.
What everyone else is talking about is the non-disorder version of stuttering, and therefore the information you are presenting as rebuttal does not apply. Stress and nervousness do result in stuttering for many people. But their "stuttering" is not the speech disorder of the same name. They do not have "a stutter", even though while nervous they "do stutter".
You are correct in that stress and nervousness does not cause the speech disorder of stuttering. What that means is that if you are put in a situation where you are highly stressed out and/or nervous, you are not likely to develop an "ongoing" stutter that continues when the stressor is removed. Once the nerves calm back down, speech will return to normal.
Also, if someone has a clinical stutter, one shouldn't assume they are nervous if they trip over their words. Nor should one assume that at some point in the past they must have been under huge amounts of stress (the disorder is not thought to develop due to huge amounts of stress). Stress and nervs might make it worse, but stress and nerves does not cause the disorder.
However, people with out the speech disorder will stutter and stammer on occasion. When people without a speech disorder do this, it is usually due to being in a situation where they are highly nervous or stressed, such as public speaking. When this happens, the person cannot be said to "have a stutter", which implies having the speech disorder. If one only has speech disruptions at times when they are nervous (stutter when nervous), and do not have such disruptions at times when they are not nervous, then they have "normal speech".
Nervousness does not give you the speech disorder called stuttering, but it does produce speech disfluencies in normal speakers. And, the speech disfluencies it produces are similar to the speech disfluences of someone with a clinical stutter.
Just like, covering someone's eyes makes them unable to see. Being blind also means one is unable to see. But if you are only "blind" when your eyes are covered, you are not "visually impaired" even though the blindfold impairs your vision.
Does that make sense?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 6:38 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
No it does not make sense! Saying things like 'UMMMMM, AHHHH' is hesitation not stuttering, and can be used to stall for time when you are searching for the right word when giving a speech. Some people use it deliberately. IT IS NOT STUTTERING!
I don't know how you use the term 'stuttering', but in my country we use it the way it was meant to be used. As a disorder!
On the weekend I asked my boyfriend's mother (who has trained in psychological nursing), and she said "No, stuttering is has nothing to do with mere stress!"
If Joseph Barnett did it so much that 3 (not 2) newspapers noted it, (those reporters were likely there), I can't imagine him doing it once or twice, but when giving each answer!
LEANNE |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 685
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 6:46 pm: | |
Jeff,
As you can see it is quite hopeless. Leanne refuses to accept that some people stutter without having a disorder. Despite textual evidence to the contrary, despite numerous personal examples, nope no way no how, every person who has ever stuttered while giving a speech has a secret speech disorder and it only manifested itself at that moment for god knows why, but it was NOT because that person was nervous.
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 6:51 pm: | |
Leanne, when I was a child, I suffered from a hell of a stutter that only struck when I had to read aloud in class, and I clearly remember the stress involved while waiting for my turn to be called upon by the teacher. Otherwise, I had no problem speaking in non-stressful situations, like talking with my friends. Eventually I learned to relax while speaking in public and lost the stutter.
I never lost my hatred for consonants, though. Or that sadistic teacher!
Dave |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 176
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
Hi all! I heard a discussion you may be interested in.
Elmer Fudd "Hey theres a verwy verwy interwesting conversation about Joe being the Wipper."
Porky Pig, "JJJJoe didnt DDDDo it. He dddont even st st stutter."
Foghorn Leghorn, "Thats right boy, I say, thats right. Joe, I say Joe had echolia, echolia I say! Than means, I say that means he repeats things boy! Theres a big, I say big difference!" |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 426
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:22 pm: | |
No Leanne,
It's 2 newspapers. One said stutter, one said stammer (and we've all agreed those are to be considered the same). The third newspaper said he repeated the words at the end of every question asked him.
Now, that's not stuttering, so that is not a 3rd instance. So, unless there is a 4th newspaper that mentions Joe's speech, and it says "stutter" or "stammer", then there are only 2 papers that suggest he "stuttered". And there is one that suggests he repeated words (not stuttering, repeating).
Now, once again, you're talking to someone about the disorder of stuttering, and they once again tell you that stress doesn't cause it.
Stress does not cause the disorder.
Stress does cause normal people to trip over their words. I've seen it. I watch my students do it. When I was early in my career, I stuttered when giving talks at conferences, but got over it with practice. I also "ummed" and "ahhhed" as well. And you're right, that's not stuttering, but I never said it was. Many things aren't stuttering that people do when they speak in public. Stuttering is just one of them.
Now, as I recall, you're boyfriend told you he once stuttered when having to cover for his sister when she skipped off work one day. When I mentioned to you that he could seek speech therapy, you told me he didn't have a stutter.
I put it to you again. Which is it? If he doesn't have a speech problem, what caused him to stutter in this case? If only people with a speech disorder can stutter, why do you claim your boyfriend doesn't have a speech disorder?
- Jeff
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:01 am: | |
hi,
My belief is that the only reason Barnett repeated the last line of a question before answering was because he was carefully and precisely answering that question.
For exsample.
Coroner.. was the deseased scared of any one man?
Barnett.. was the deseased scared of any one man,'No sir' are quarrels were soon over.
In conclusion i believe his mind was working overtime to give credibility to his presence.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:17 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
You wont give in will you? 'involuntary repetition of a another person's speech' is called: 'echolalia'. If your such a medical expert, what exactly did those two newspapers mean in 1888 when they used the terms: 'stuttered' and 'stammered'?
If he only did it once or twice, why would they have bothered to describe his speech that way? and a person can begin to stutter after they reach adulthood!
My boyfriend used stuttering as a tool once to stall for time. When he hung up the phone, he stopped stuttering!
BRAD: About 5% of all children stutter at some stage of their childhood and it is usually made worse when the child is stressed, but not caused by the stress. 1% of this 5% persist in stuttering.
LEANNE
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1218
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:51 am: | |
Leanne,
Joe may have stuttered or stammered or whatever we're calling it, but that doesn't mean he had the disorder of stuttering or stammering. In England we call the disorder "stuttering" but we also call the occasional tripping over of words due to stress or nervousness by the same name. Therefore the disorder and the occasional stress/nervousness related tripping up of words are called the same thing. This is were it is confusing. You are right, the disorder is not caused by stress, however, people can still stutter from time to time when under stress or when they are nervous but this doesn't mean they have the disorder. I stutter from time to time when I'm nervous but I do not suffer from the disorder of "stuttering". I ONLY stutter when under stress or when I'm nervous.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 6:32 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
We're not talking about 'the occasional tripping over of words' here. Joe did it enough for some reporters to use it in their description of his speech. Added to that is the fact that he echoed words after EVERY question asked!
If he did it once or twice I doubt that anyone would have noticed!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Leanne,
Yes but Joe was under pressure and he was no doubt stressed. He may have stuttered throughout the inquest but that doesn't naturally make him a stutterer in normal life.
Maybe he did have the disorder and maybe he didn't, but the press may have noticed it a few times and thought that it was a good thing to put in the papers to make people think he was nervous and had something to hide.
Truth is, we will never know. I still think Joe is a credible suspect without this whole "stuttering" issue though.
I was just pointing out to you that people can stutter and not have the disorder and when this occurs is usually due to stress or nervousness.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
That's it!!! He didn't have to stutter all the time, under normal circumstances. The onset of the problem may be gradual or sudden. It may start then stop, then start up again, but it is not caused by mere emotional trauma!
People with no underlying problem may have 'dysfluencies' of speech at times under stress.
http://www.speakeasy.org.au/stuttering.html
LEANNE
Q: What is the centre of gravity? A :V
(Message edited by Leanne on August 03, 2004) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 686
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
I am just going to keep repeating this until it maybe sinks in:
"Speech dysfluencies such as repeating speech sounds and words, prolonging speech sounds, and hesitating during speech can accompany a wide variety of stressful events such as stroke, head injury, neurological disease, language development pressures, and fatigue."
and
"All speakers experience moments, or even prolonged periods, of speech dysfluency."
So...
the fact that he stuttered during his entire interview would still not mean he had a speech disorder.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 194
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
Leanne,
When you say that normal people can have "dysfluencies" of speech under stress, that would be agreeing with us and proving that Joe almost certainly didn't have a speech impedement.
Right?
Or did you say that but miss its meaning?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Leanne,
Q: What is the centre of gravity? A :V
I'll have to remember that one.
I still don't believe that just because he stuttered at the inquest (if he did at all) it means that he has the disorder.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 636
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
And to add to what Ally says, and repeat something I have said before, Joe Barnett was said by various newspapers to be an Irishman. Stammering is actually part of the Northside Dublin accent. It isn't a disorder, it has nothing to do with stress or anything else. People from the north of Dublin just stammer. The same is true of some other parts of the country, the Limerick accent for instance sounds very like the person is stammering. Come over here sometime and have a listen, you will hear it a hundred times a day.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
Alan,
To be fair though, Joe's accent couldn't have been that strong as he was born in London. I'm not agreeing with Leanne though as you can see above, but I don't think that's a very credible explanation. I think it's most likely he was just nervous and stressed by the whole incident.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 692
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Sarah,
I disagree with that. Depending on how thick the accents were within his family and community, it is entirely conceivable that Joe may well have spoken like an Irishman. I know that in Miami many second and third generation immigrants still speak with a very strong accent because their community does.
Not saying he did just that it is possible despite him not having been born in Ireland.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 427
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
We've discussed echolalia many times, and as it is not stuttering, there's no need to go into that issue.
What exactly did the newspapers mean when they used the terms suttering and stammering? That's a very good question.
You've been focusing on the modern clinical use of the term stuttering. You're choice of websites and such demonstrates that focus.
The newspaper reporters of 1888 who wrote the articles in question are not using the modern clinical definitions. They can't be, can they. I mean, first the clinical definitions as used today for a clinical stutter have probably changed since 1888 (making the modern clinical definitions unavailable for an 1888 reporter to even know). Second, to diagnose the speech disorder of stuttering, one has to ensure the stutter occurs when the person is not nervous (an emotional state known to cause similar speech disfluencies in an otherwise normal speaker). Given that Joe is in a very nervous type situation when they observed his speech, they would be unable to diagnose him with a stutter in the clinical sense. As a third point, it would be highly unlikely that a newspaper reporter of 1888 would have any sort of training that would allow for such a diagnosis or even for them to be familear with the 1888 diagnostic criterion behind such a diagnosis. Therefore, the newspaper reporters cannot be using the same definition of "stutter" that you are, nor are they using an 1888's clinical definition.
If they do not mean the clinical definition of a stutter, what do they mean?
I and others have been trying to explain to you that the same two terms have a "common usage", a "laymen's definition", which describes a similar speech dysfluency as the clinical stutter, but it does not meet all of the criterions for a clinical diagnosis of having a speech disorder. This use of the stutter/stammer includes, but is not limited to, the tripping over initial word sounds (d..d..don't know).
The laymen's use of stutter/stammer, however, often includes other speech dysfluencies as well. Many people use it to include the speech of someone who excessively "...um's..." and "...ah's..." (umm .... ahhh .... don't ... ahhh ... don't know), or someone who seems unable to get the next word out (don't ...... know), where they seem trying to speak during the the pause but seem "locked up". (In fact, those speech hesitations might be part of a clinical stutter; not sure).
Now, as we've discussed, some of these forms of speech disruptions are not what a speech therapist would call a "stutter". And, even by a dictionary definition, they are not really all "stuttering" (um'ing and ah'ing for example). But, the phrase "he stuttered during his talk", is often used to describe any and all of the above kind of speaking patterns if the phrase appears outside of a clinical conversation.
Since we know that the reporters aren't using a modern clinical definition and they aren't using an 1888's clinical definition (from above), it seems likely that they are using a layman's definition. And, laymen will use the terms stuttering and stammering to describe many sorts of "broken speech pattern".
In other words, by saying that Joe stuttered/stammered the newspapers mean that Joe's speech was not smooth flowing. Exactly what form his speech disruptions took, we can't really say because they could be referring to any individual or combination of the above speech dysfluencies (and perhaps some others I've not thought of).
In fact, the newspapers themselves don't even agree. Two say "stutter/stammer" and one says " he repeated words". It could be that Joe "umm'ed and ahhhh'ed" a lot, repeated some words as well, hesitated a few times, stuttered once or twice, etc. One reporter noticed the repeated words, another two noted the stutter/stammer, when writing up their articles. Basically, however, he may have done none of them all the time, but did all of them some of the time, making his speech very disrupted. This "mix bag" of speech dysfluencies is exactly the kind of pattern you get when someone is nervous.
In conclusion, with the disagreement in the papers as to the description of Joe's speech, the lack of any indication of a singular speech problem from any other occasion, the fact that laymens usage of the terms stutter and stammer covers a huge number of speech patterns (most of which only indicate a nervous speaker), I would put to you that the newspapers mean "Joe was a nervous speaker" when they use the terms stutter/stammer and repeated the last words.
- Jeff |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 697
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 6:09 pm: | |
That was an excellent post Jeff and brought up some really good points. Obviously the newspapers were not providing a medical diagnosis. Just for a lark I went to google and searched for witness, testifying and stutter. Try it...you would be surprised. Along with numerous fictional accounts indicating that this phenomena is prevalent in the mindset of society, there is also actual trial accounts with stuttering witnesses...apparently numerous people with speech disorders are being constantly called upon to testify at trials.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
'What exactly did the newspapers mean when they used the terms 'stuttering' and 'stammering'? That's as very good question'.
The words were obviously around at the time but it was too soon for them to know the cause, so I find it hard to believe that the reporters exagerated just to make their stories more interesting.
My boyfriends mother is Dutch, came to Australia about 50 years ago, but still has a very strong Dutch accent. My boyfriend was born in Australia and speaks very much like an Aussie!
DAN: I said that regular people can have 'dysfluencies' of speech under stress like: hesitation, "Ummmmm...", "AHHH....'
LEANNE
Q: Why did the germ cross the microscope?
A: To get to the other slide! 
(Message edited by Leanne on August 03, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 428
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 6:46 pm: | |
Leanne,
I think one should always consider the possibility that the newspapers exagerated just to make their stories more interesting! As much today as in 1888!
As for people of xth generation London still speaking with an accent of their ancestors, such is not uncommon provided there is a large enough population of the "home country" in the area. If, for example, your boyfriend grew up in a community that was primarily of Dutch decent, and that community generally kept to themselves (had stores, barbers, schools, etc), where everyone spoke Dutch except when "outsiders" came in, then even though he lived and grew up in Australia he would have been unlikely to pick up an Australian accent. Rather he would be likely to have retained a Dutch accent.
But even in that situation, some people learn a 2nd language with very little (even no) accent from their first language. So as always, there are no absolutes.
Still, I think the Irish in London may have been more like the above "isolated" community weren't they? (Maybe to some extent still are? Don't know, don't live there). As long as they were in 1888, then we shoudldn't discard too quickly the possibility of Joe retaining an Irish lilt. And, if his particular accent could include stammering, things get even more complicated. These ideas, especially the "accent with stammering" one, are probably getting a bit too "long shottish" to be put forth as anything more than a caution at the moment. First, we would have to establish how likely it was that Joe maintained an Irish accent, and 2nd to see if it could be established what Irish accent he's likely to have retained! Tracing his family tree would be the place to start, but we would also need to know what Irish accent was prominent in the are in which he grew up! (Did he maintain the accent of his ancestors that first came to London, or did he develop the accent most common in the Irish community where he grew up? etc). Obviously, any "conclusion" we came to would be complete speculation and could never be considered "proved" since we don't have a recording of Joe's speaking voice. My, how much that would solve! ha!
Now, let's just pretend that we could do the above (found information that suggested Joe could very well have picked up an Irish accent that includes stammering because it was common in the area). Then one might reasonably suggest that a newspaper reporter who covered Whitechappel would also be familiar with that accent! And if the reporters could be considered familiar with, they probably wouldn't have though "Joe spoke funny" enough to even note it down. Again, even though they may have, it seems to me that by mentioning him stuttering, it's either a complete fabrication, or it's not a common accent in the area. And if it's not common in the area, it's unlikely (but not impossible) that Joe has retained that particular Irish accent.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:30 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
But one of those newspapers was 'The Illustrated Police News'! Now that was one reporter that was likely to be there at Shoreditch Town Hall.
I was speaking to my boyfriend today about his accent and he told me that Dutch people in Australia don't hang around each other because Dutch immigrants don't like other Dutch immigrants! He is the youngest of five children and by the time he was learning to speak, everyone in his household spoke English. His mum told him that the only English words she knew when she first arrived here were: "Money in your purse." and "Purse in your pocket." She used to ask her kids: "How do you say this word in English?"
Irish immigrants in the mid-nineteenth century sort work on the London streets, (as street sellers), as soon as they got there, causing rivalry between them and the Jewish immigrants. I wouldn't call that 'isolated'! They would have had to lose their Irish accent to be successful sellers.
Also, Joseph Barnett worked at Billingsgate Market for over ten years before the inquest, where the dock workers would have used a very English accent!
LEANNE
A: People in glass houses.....
B: ....shouldn't undress! 
(Message edited by Leanne on August 04, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:13 am: | |
Ally,
You know, after posting and re-reading that I remembered that my granddad moved from Ireland to England when he was about 15 but up until the day he died he spoke with a strong Irish accent, at least that's what we all thought. A couple of times, my granddad's sisters visited and they said that, to them, it sounded like he had more or less lost his accent and that it certainly wasn't strong Irish anymore. Even if Joe spoke with an Irish accent (which I still don't know if he did) then it probably wasn't strong enough to use the "Irish accent" excuse of stuttering. He lost his parents at a young age so he couldn't have picked up much of it from them. Also, were there many Irish living in his community when he was growing up?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 701
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:08 am: | |
Why would the dock workers have had to have had a "very English accent"?
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 429
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Interesting about the lack of community among the Dutch at that time. That would certainly reduce the tendency for the kids to maintain any accent (as with your boyfriend).
As for being "isolated", I don't mean living in a town with nobody else, but rather where say "Irish shop in Irish stores, have only Irish friends, drink in Irish pubs, etc". By "Irish stores" and "Irish pubs", I just mean that those stores and pubs are known to be used by the Irish; the Jews shop and drink in "their" stores and pubs, the English in theirs, etc. Basically a socially forced segregation; where everyone has the attitude of "we don't associate with those people". Depending upon the social circumstances, being a street seller might encourage one to maintain their accent so each of them attracts different customers; I get all the Irish people, you get all the Jews, Fred over there gets all the English, etc (though not quite as overtly agreed upon as that; it could just fall out of the dynamic of selling via market pressures).
Anyway, I don't know enough about the social circumstances of the time to know. I'm just thinking of possibilities and such. Sarah's point is a good one in that Joe's parents were gone early in his life. So if he maintained an Irish accent, he would have had to either have one by the time his parents left, and would have had to be exposed to a large enough Irish community to have maintained it.
As for the dock workers, I agree with Ally that the accents there would have been many and varied.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
G'day,
To find out about working conditions at Billingsgate Market, look through this:
http://www.victorianlondon.org/markets/billingsgate.htm
and this:
http://www.cyberartsweb.org/victorian/books/mcdonnell/billingsgate.html
LEANNE |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 703
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I did read it, thank you. Here's the part that struck me:
"its large flaring oil-lamps showing a crowd struggling amidst a Babel din of vulgar tongues"
In other words, many languages and dialects being spoken there by it's workers.
Thank you again for the website.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:19 am: | |
G'day Jeff, Ally, Sarah, anyone else,
About Irish immigrants to London:
http://www.victorianlondon.org/population/irish.htm
LEANNE
Q: Why smile? 
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:49 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for bringing this site to my attention. Joe Flemming was described by Julia Venturney as a costermonger.
Too answer your question, Why not?
All the best,CB |
leahhoward
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
Leave Leanne alone you bunch of Hitlers.Enough already. |
|
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