|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 953
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 8:32 pm: |       |
David Radka,
With all respect, you are without exception the most entertaining character I have ever encountered. You bright up my day.
"I believe Martin Anderson and Glenn L. Andersson either are one and the same or else they have cooked up some kind of a "bogey" deal between themselves."
I have already answered that, and I really shouldn't bother to elaborate on Radka's strange whims and give them the unnecessary attention, but I must confess I can't help myself.
Since Martin and I are both registred on the Boards, I believe Stephen would have noted that, and I don't think he would approve of such a conduct. Maybe it is possible to do if you are an unregistred guest, though, I don't know. Anyway, I don't believe I am schizofren enough to do a conversation with myself -- yet. 
And no, Martin and I don't have a deal of any kind. It is actually possible for two individuals to think along the same lines -- although I don't think we are THAT much in tune at all occasions. I hardly agree with him regarding Packer, for example. So once again I am sorry to disappoint you; I prefer to run my own race, regardless if I am the turtle or the hare.
"Now, I fully understand that the great majority of people posting these boards simply are not going to be able to comprehend what I just wrote above. That's okay."
Actually, your second point in that particular post I think was quite reasonable and I can agree with much of it. One of the sanest scribbles I've seen from you so far.
"Really, how closely embraced, methodologically, could any two people be? Hand in hand they walk into oblivion. Blackness of blackness, and nothing beyond; the case nothing anymore, utterly beyond resolution. Oh! The humanity!"
I see that you have changed turf from philosophy to poetry. Interesting.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 954
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 8:44 pm: | |
Mr Palmer,
"But its only a matter of semantics that we call such admittedly frightening behavior "violent" and then associate this type of "violence" with the "violence" associated with the criminal act of murdering women."
Since I think it is obvious that the Ripper was a violent character (his deeds speaks for themselves) and also a mentally unwell person, his medical condition becomes a criminal one. We are dealing with a criminal here (who probably happens to have a medical condition) -- not an ordinary inmate in the nearest loonie bin. But it is true that it doesen't automatically qualify Cohen for being the Ripper, although I think his violent streak makes him a better choice than Kosminski.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 955
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 8:45 pm: | |
Robert,
Interesting thought.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1804
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:02 am: | |
David, it's obvious what's happened. The Philosopher Radka (Saddam City) was interested in Glenn Anderson, while the Poet Radka (Bullwinkle Met) was interested in Martin Anderson. But the two halves of the Radka brain didn't communicate with each other, with the result that certain details pertaining to Glenn Anderson became attached to Martin Anderson, and vice versa.
Hope this helps.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
If I read you write you right, Robert, then you are claiming that these four split personalities could well have been Jack the Ripper?
Astonishing deduction my dear fellow, you have my congratulations. Case closed and all that.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 961
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1805
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 8:37 am: | |
AP, it gets worse, for we have the two Andersons, the two Radkas, Cohen, Kosminski, Uncle Charles, Young Tom, Cunning Joe Barnett, Jealous Rage Joe Barnett, several more Joe Barnetts, plus of course Gary's gorilla.
Adding that lot up, I think the East End got off lightly.
Robert |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Poetry, I think, is quite dangerous and should be avoided with respect to Ripperology. We could create a case solution that would compel us to believe it because of its beauty, but what good is that, really? On the other hand, we can't detect the murderer purely on the basis of empirical evidence either--the case has gone beyond solution in this respect, as Evans says. I suggest a mediating course instead. Stay in the middle. Analyze the the empirical case evidence critically, according to an epistemological center which is itself critically analyzable, and determine a solution. This is the only way we have left to us now.
Like most of what I write here, the above will be scoffed at immediately, as if I'd just loudly and vividly f*rted in the room, and obviously disgraced myself. But a week or so from now, posters will be found automatically incorporating it into their posts as axiomatic to the solution of the case. That's the way it goes. I know you are all hanging on my every word. And, I know you don't deserve me.
Bullwinkle |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Isn't that what poor old Sickert had on his penis?
An 'epistemological center'?
To be honest with you Bullwinkle I hung myself a long time ago when reading your words.
Personally I believe there are still many avenues and challenges left in this hunt for Jack, and you would be most unwise to shut poetry or prose out as valid investigative tools.
I honestly believe that such prose and poetry - particularly the black comic prose - opens up our minds to new possibilities, and would respectfully suggest to you that many of the contributions on the poetry thread have made a lot more sense than your sometimes incoherent babbling on what are supposed to be more serious threads.
Many of the topics on the poetry thread actually have prompted some people to reconsider their entrenched views on the case, and this is always good and positive.
As an instance I believe we have opened up an entirely new possibility with our comic efforts with the Cutbush family, perhaps showing for the first time that Jack could have easily carried out his crimes whilst living at home in a dysfunctional family environment, and thus perhaps disappears the somewhat entrenched view that Jack must have been some kind of loner… an ‘outsider’ if you like - in the words of the man in the potting shed with a funny hat on - but on the contrary I think our efforts have shown that he could have very much been the ‘insider’ operating with the dumb tacit approval of his fairly demented family.
I could mention at least another dozen such important developments within the prose and poetry efforts on this site which do carry far more weight and import to what we discuss than your ‘epistemological center’.
You should really get it seen to before it is too late and you start writing hoax letters under a pseudonym.
|
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 14
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
Bullwinkle,
This is you who started this Anderson-connection rubbish. Naff off it was funny for a while. Anyway I am only a tortoise in the morning.
By the way I saw a programme last night about the Cambden Ripper in the NE of London who was caught in 2002. It was interesting because he fitted all the stereotypical components of most serial killers in that he was a polite, quiet man living alone. He was actually sectioned under the mental health act in 1995 and of course he often went with prostitutes. But he actually hated women and as soon as he was released from the mental institution he immediately went on a killing spree.
There was no religious aspect to his persona however, but I am inclined to believe this was a hidden part of his psyche, and his TV was his shrine. The detective investigating the case said as much. The detective also admitted he was of a quiet nature, thus proving a serial killer does not necessarily have to be a raving lunatic. In fact he showed no signs of violence whatsoever. (remember Kosminski?)
If JTR was of a similar disposition, then I still believe we are looking for someone in an institution which again brings us back to Kosminski or Cutbush. But of course there may be others brought into the equation but as authors have previously noted, the police have usually come across the perpetrator at some point in their investigation.
Oh and hello AP ;)
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
And hello to you too, Martin
you'll see that we have been having a casual chat about the Camden Ripper on another thread, and that some of us do explore the quiet or 'happy' lunatic idea on the poetry thread.
I always try to keep in mind that regardless of the degree of lunacy, such killers are usually able to move through the corridors of life in a normal 'organized' fashion for 99% of the time and only become 'disorganized' for that one per cent when circumstances allow. I feel the Camden Ripper was a classic example of such 'controlled' lunancy, and yes, this could be true of Jack as well. |
John Fogarty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
Hullo, AP:
Normally, sir, I find myself in total agreement with your posts. On this occasion, however, I must quibble with your suggestion of a "happy" Ripper (as evinced by the various dark doggerel and sick-comic operae often attributed to him). I can see no happy Ripper in the canvases he left behind, viz. Chapman, Eddowes, and (esp.) Kelly. This was most assuredly not a happy Camden camper.
However, I suppose in moments of repose, our boy may have been a more composed and cozy fellow -- though I doubt it. Then, too, we may be dealing with more than one jack the hack, in which case t'other member of the deadly duo may well have given himself to bits of doggerel (i.e., "Nor yet a foreign skipper," the Goulston Graffito, Dear Boss, etc.) If so, the differing pens behind the "Dear Boss" letter and card, the "Dear Friend in the name of God" epistle (in the same hand), and the highly different "From Hell" missive may be explained by two cohorts working together. What think ye?
Signed
Write me when you can
Mishter Wolf
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 1:37 pm: | |
Dear Boss
Yes, sorry about that, perhaps ‘happy’ was a poor choice of word. I think I was attempting to show that even a serial killer can have violent - no pun intended - mood swings where he or she might move from some kind of catatonia to euphoria in a matter of minutes when not seconds, usually in response to a specific situation involving a victim. I felt this was evident in the behaviour of him whom you charmingly call the ‘Camden Camper’. The difficulty is in understanding the pleasure principle of the canvases both killers left behind, and this is something I intend to dwell upon at length, but I do suppose I am in a muddle concerning whether the canvases were left for the viewer or solely for the benefit of the isolated creator.
What I do see as an immediate and radical difference between Jack and the Camden Camper is the fact that one killed at home whilst the other took his art onto the street. It strikes me that someone who kills at home is very likely to be in a far more parlous condition mentally than someone who kills out on the street. I see nothing but defeat and ultimate exposure in the behaviour of a killer who takes his work home, so to speak, whilst in the behaviour of a killer who keeps his business to the anonymous streets I do see a certain amount of logic and reason in application and behaviour.
Perhaps what I am saying is that if some kind of degenerative process of ultimate satiation is at work in a serial killer’s brain - and I for one think it is - then Jack was in the early stages and the Camden Camper was at the end of the road. One is left wondering what else your happy camper might have been doing in his spare time to have accelerated this process?
From hell.
|
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
Hi again AP - or do you prefer AW?
To move onto your letter, 'Who is happy anyway?' Obviously the Ripper was each time he got away but maybe he was never capable of being happy. This is what I believe, I will be honest.
He probably didnt even know when he was happy. He had a personality complex, a mental disorder, a frustrating tendency to defeat even himself...call it what you want, but all he knew was that he had to kill. What gave him this idea? (Or even this right?)
I still think it comes back to religion. Religion teaches what is right and what is wrong. But even a twisted mind knows that it has to justify itself by this. So that is how so many serial killers think that they are the chosen one to rid the world of evil. Have you ever noticed how at home they are with police??? They think they are actually helping the [police and try to form some kind of bond when all the time the police are playing devil's advocate in order to get to the truth.
Anyway they do try to justify themselves with whatever they consider to be right. This is ironic because they are actually putting themselves in a position to do the work of evil.
"It strikes me that someone who kills at home is very likely to be in a far more parlous condition mentally than someone who kills out on the street."
I can see what you mean AW, but what if that person lived on the street. I am just saying this for arguments sake because we are on the Kosminski
thread. Can we comprehend that the street could be a home to certain individuals? No need to reply as its just a rhetorical question but I would like an answer to how a person could commit these awful crimes? Is it mental derangement, misfortune blended with a deadly cocktail of religion? I started this thread with a religious quote because I think so...
On another note AP, which thread is the Camden Ripper on?
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 8:36 pm: | |
Dear Mr Bullwinkle,
It also depends on How we hold the mirror, Where we hold the mirror...but mostly, Who holds the mirror. For you the war is over!
So, what lies yonder, on the other side of "Nothing"? For myself, dialectics borne out of the Ideal yield nought in and of itself, though on the odd occasion it's conceits produce a little poesy of some note to comfort the 'soul's' journey into darkness.
My preference, is from the particular to the general, a la, Marx, who critised Hegel for his ability to pull something from nothing by its hair!
And you may well be extremely competent in a solution, of sorts, but I suspect that any 'successful' solution is but the beginning of
a NEW dialectical search n' destroy mission that takes you close to the frontier of human comprehension.We are waiting.
Gosh. Four Bloody Mary's and I speak in tongues!
Rosey :-) |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Martin, I give you a quote:
‘Death rang through and through the Articles; and even where the words were utterly incomprehensible the death had a fine, comminatory, Leviticus ring, and the crew took a grave pleasure in it all; it was what they were used to - it was what they heard the first Sunday in every month. They found it comfortable to their spirits.’
From Patrick O’Brian, ‘Master and Commander’.
Death, religion and murder, and the consequences of were quite different in 1888 than they are now.
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
"My preference, is from the particular to the general, a la, Marx, who critised Hegel for his ability to pull something from nothing by its hair!"
>>We are closer to the main element of the case when we talk of these matters than the majority know. Being and Nothing, comings and goings one to the other, are so much the point concerning our murderer. (Nothing spoke often to Scocrates too, but he knew it not.) My caution concerning the case, old friend, is to stay away from the particular until the right moment. Remain general as long as you can, it'll keep you cleaner and in the middle longer.
Bullwinkle |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Socrates, not Scocrates (typo). |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Bullwinkle,
Hey it doesn't matter about typos we all make them. As long as its not in a quote!
Ap,
I am not familiar with Patrick O’Brian's, ‘Master and Commander’ - is it about the strength of religion?
Regards,
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
Martin
no, it's about seamen serving on battle line ships of a byegone age, it did illustrate very well though the differing attitudes concerning life, death, religion and religious murder between then and now.
A good read which has recently been made into a film with that overweight Australian actor pushing his beer gut around the deck of a Man O' War. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:59 pm: | |
AP wrote:
"Isn't that what poor old Sickert had on his penis?
An 'epistemological center'? "
Excellent! That's a near perfect response.
But Sickert's 'epistemological center' was actually on his anus, judging by the doctor who removed it. David "Bullwinkle" Radka's center is so large they might need to remove it from both locations. |
|
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