Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 12:43 pm |        |
Sorry, Rich, when I asked who were all these Maybrick proponents who have been questioning your scholarship and intelligence, I didn't mean I literally wanted you to name them all! 
My point really, as I'm sure you are aware, was to observe that 'the people' [plural] who support Maybrick and who engage in the conduct you mentioned seem rather conspicious by their absence. And I wondered why many people seem to retain this false impression that Maybrick diary-as-bible bashers abound on these boards. One voice, now departed, surely never had so much influence that it sounded like more than just one, or even a choir? If you get my drift.
I appreciate, however, the fact that you are now withdrawing those comments, and I will say no more about it - until the next person has trouble with their maths regarding the support on these boards for Maybrick as a ripper suspect.
BTW, thanks for the kind comments - also much appreciated.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 03:59 pm | |
Caz,
Must we infest this thread with talk of the Diary? I've peaked in on the Diary threads in the past and know exactly what Rich is talking about. Whether it's occuring right now or not is irrelevant. I'm confused why Maybrick's name even comes up when discussing legitimate contemporary suspects, no matter how silly some people think they are!
Monty,
I am here for the knowledge as well, and also for entertainment. I've been coming to the boards since '97 or '98, so I'm pretty familiar with some of the people who stop in here.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 06:50 pm | |
Well Ivor,
A cross for your own back?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 09:13 pm | |
| Rosey, The day you start talking any sense will be the day of the second coming.I dont believe in beings from other planets but with you I am prepared to make the exception. |
Author: Chris Jd
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 07:26 am | |
 |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 11:50 am | |
Hi Tom,
'Must we infest this thread with talk of the Diary?'
No - so why drag it up again, and address your post to me, when 'we', ie Rich and I, had just tucked it nicely up in bed?
'I'm confused why Maybrick's name even comes up when discussing legitimate contemporary suspects, no matter how silly some people think they are!'
If you read my posts here on the subject, you would know that my own confusion over why Rich chose to bring Maybrick's name up on this thread was what caused me to jump in, like you just have! I even referred to Maybrick as a non-suspect.
'I've peaked in on the Diary threads in the past and know exactly what Rich is talking about. Whether it's occuring right now or not is irrelevant.'
Well perhaps you could enlighten me then. I must have read pretty much everything written on the diary boards since the end of 1998, and allowing that I haven't gone senile yet, I can't recall you or Rich, or anyone else for that matter, being tormented by rabid Maybrick supporters. Talk about a serious persecution complex!
May I suggest that if people don't want to see other threads in the future being polluted with posts by Caz containing Maybrick's name that they refrain from bringing up the subject themselves and introducing yet another myth about it.
(Now, Jim lad, back to bed with you this minute - if you promise to stay there and be good, I'll bring you up some cocoa and read you a story.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 12:51 am | |
Caz,
This particular Jim lad would dearly love some cocoa and a story, however, I suspect it is an offer to a specific Jim lad, and not just any old Jim lad.
Wistfully,
Anyoldjimlad. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 07:35 am | |
Ivor,
Will answer in due course.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 10:39 am | |
| Hi Rosey. Just be sure I will be able to understand it and that I wont have to get NASA to decode it. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 08:08 am | |
Hi Jim lad,
If I had seen your post in the early hours of Sunday morning I would have been happy to oblige.
Now then, how do you like your cocoa? And are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.
Once upon a time, one million years BC (before Caz), when dozens of pro-Diary dinosaurs roamed these boards with no one but Raquel Welch in a skimpy animal skin for company....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Chris Jd
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:57 am | |
Raquel Welsh in those days in ANY costume would've turned ME pro-diary!
Christian |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 08:21 pm | |
| In the July issue of Ripper Notes Des McKenna blasts forth at Melvin Harris on possibility of 2 D'Onstons.What interested me is his statement that D'Onston's 'Patristic Gospels ' are not a historical study.I know that McKenna has read the 'Patristic Gospels' and I believe he said that they were an attempt to arrive at the correct version on the Gospels using the Church Fathers as primary source, and that he concluded that the Authorised Version was the nearest to the originals then available.Actually, though I haven't read D'Onston's work and would like to if I could find it,the title 'Patristic Gospels' is not a New Testament Scholar's title.In fact it really makes no sense. The Church Fathers did not write Gospels, even though many so called Gospels were in circulation.They defended the Four Gospels.Patristics is a study of the writings of the Church Fathers, and for the title to make sense in this context it would concern what the Fathers said about the Canonical 4.That would entail a historical examination of the manuscripts available to them.Gospel is certainly a word meaning 'good news' but it is also a particular type of literature aimed at a particular audience.So then Patristic Gospels would mean what the Fathers said about the Gospels.This then would be a historical study.I think the very title shows that D'onston was no academic New Testament scholar even though he could read several ancient and modern languages.Many laymen today become quite learned through their own studies.I also wonder if he paid to get it published and how many were issued.It appears that many aspiring authors and poets paid to have their work published.If Auliff is correct in calling him a madman he could have studied the Bible and ancient New Testament manuscripts and many of the Apocryphal Gospels as well as keeping his box of ties.If fact D'Onston, if he was the Ripper could very well be acting on God's command--Look at who he killed---Where he killed them.One of the great magicians was Eliphaz Levi (Constant) who never went so far from Christianity that he recieved the Church's Last Rites and was taken back into the fold on his death bed.Perhaps he took the text literally that said "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin".Perhaps these unfortunates were a sacrifice or as it were a blood atonement for the sins of Whitechapel.A madman can arrive at conclusions that would astonish us.Well again for what its worth the study of manuscripts to get at a correct text is very definitly a historical study.D'Onston was not a witch but a rosicrucian--there are some differences between the two. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:03 am | |
| Hi David,Caution is required when referring to Jack the Ripper as mad.Many murder cases exist where members of the public have taken it for granted that the killer was mad but the law has proven otherwise.It also amuses me no end when it is stated that the ripper was most certainly a sadosexual killer or suchlike when the motive has only been guessed at.Any talk that the murders must have been sexually motivated because the victims were female and prostitutes and that their private parts were attacked leaves much to be desired. You know more than most on the subject of the Gospels and suchlike so it is with great interest that I read your words. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 04:38 pm | |
Hi all,
Just a slight clarification - the law in the United States and Britain never tries to determine the sanity or madness of criminals - only whether they have the capacity to determine right from wrong and, in some instances, whether they are able to resist their compulsion.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 07:32 pm | |
| Rich.You are not correct in your statement above.Alleged killer Ian Huntley is at the moment being assessed by psychiatrists at Rampton to see if he is mentally fit to stand trial. This assessment has nothing to do with whether or not he knows right from wrong.The law is trying to determine Huntley's sanity. |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 08:16 pm | |
| Mr.Dewar: Are you certain that we don't attempt to ascertain sanity from the perp,here in the States? Didn't they,for an example,attempt to establish Jeffrey Dahmer's sanity in Milwaukee ? Maybe I'm wrong,but I thought they did... Thanks How |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:07 pm | |
Hi Howard,
I know in the UK many killers before trial are remanded to prison hospitals to determine if they are in fact sane etc. The youngest killers I ever saw being assessed were aged 14 and 15 and they were in the hospital at Brixton Prison in the 1960's.It is not just murderers who can be assessed any number of various criminal types can be assessed by law in the UK prior to trial. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 11:53 pm | |
Hello all,
Ivor is right that it would probably be a mistake to deem the Ripper murders 'sadosexual'. Although I believe there was an inherent sexual motive, it was certainly not a sadistic one, as is evidence by the fact that pain played no part and the killer made every effort to dispatch them as quickly and quietly as possible so that he COULD go about doing what he came for. If he had been sadistic, he would have gone about his killings in a different way.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 05:00 am | |
Hello all
In the UK, I do not believe we try to assess (before trial) if the suspect was insane at the time of the crime, we try to assess if he is sane enough to stand trial.
This surely is the point made by supporters of the Anderson suspect as to why their man was beyond reach - he may or may not have been nuts when he committed some or all of the crimes, but he was by the time he was identified.
Regards
Pete |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 06:48 am | |
Hello Tom.
Pain does not have to be a component in the Ripper-type killing in order for it to be a sadistic act. The crucial issue here is one of intent. Many such offenders fantasize about the destruction of a live victim. A number have expressed their desire to take a circular saw to a woman, for example. Some have even enacted such fantasies. But the reality of the Ripper's crime scene situation was that any such activity would have led to victims screaming out in pain, an eventuality that would have led to his certain capture. Hence victims were killed prior to the commencement of the mutilations proper. Had there been no element of sadism in the murder ritual, there would be no evidence of unnecessary cuts. The slashing of Kate Eddowes' face was wholly unnecessary from a practical standpoint, as was the removal of flesh from Mary Kelly's thigh. These acts occurred because the offender's fantasy was anchored in the sadistic destruction of women. Hence his crimes were sadosexually motivated.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 08:18 am | |
| Am I right in thinking I read that it took Stride over a minute or two to die? Can we say that the death was instantaneous?A lot of thinking can take place in a minute.The story by Ambrose Bierce, "Occurance At Owl Creek Bridge", makes a good point regarding this.With all the blood on the walls at Kelly's makes you think that she was alive when she was being cut to pieces at least for a while.Of all the murders Eddowes and Kelly had a high emotional basis for the killer, even to the point of extreme hatred, not just killing. |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 08:22 am | |
Hello Everybody,
Cutting someone's throat is, to me anyhow, a fairly sadistic act. Mutilating the remains, likewise.
To say the killings are not sadistic because no pain was involved, (been strangled recently anyone?), surely implies a scenario where every jogger running along the street is a latent masochist because they just love aches, pains and creaky knees the following day.
Every culture in the world venerates their dead. I don't think that there is any escape from the conclusion that the mutilations are sadistic, bestial acts perpetrated by a, er, sadistic beast.
Thanking you.
Jim Leen |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 09:22 am | |
Hi Ivor,
I do not mean to quibble, but your reply to my remark is a non sequitor. As you noted, psychiatrists do examine to determine if suspects have the mental capacity to contribute to their own defense. This is quite a different question than whether the person was insane at the time they committed their crime.
I stand by my initial comment: that the law does not attempt to determine the state of an individual's sanity when they committed crimes - only whether the individual had the capacity to determine right from wrong.
As you know, quite frequently, psychiatrists do pronounce suspects insane but nonetheless they are found guilty of murder. This is because the jury or judge has found that despite the insanity, the suspect did not suffer from an irrisistable impulse or still had the capacity to determine right from wrong.
In fact, Howard, I believe this is what happened to Mr. Dahmer. I believe the psychiatrists, both defense and prosecution, were unanimous that he suffered from mental illness. The disagreement was over whether he could resist his impulses.
The confusion on this topic often arises because the legal and clinical definitions of insanity are different. To be legally insane, a person must either be unable to distinguish right from wrong or be unable to resist acting out on their impulses.
Now, as Ivor points out, frequently in both the US and UK certain defendants never stand trial because they are found to be insane and unable to contribute to their own defense. This is somewhat different because in this scenario the guilt or innocence of the suspect is not to be considered.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 10:29 am | |
Ivor,
1.You claim the longitudinal axis of the unified events...lozenge-shaped...has the azimuth 358.5. [Minus One and Half degrees of True North.]
That means Jack had 'little leeway'.
2.Stride was a FAINT devised by a committee of forensic psychopaths.
3.Its final transformation is into the shape of a Soul-Collector.
*yawn* Next question please.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:05 pm | |
Garry,In your reply to Tom you mention the marks on Eddowes face and the flesh stripped from Kelly's thigh. Then you add, "These acts occurred because the offenders fantasy was anchored in the sadistic destruction of women. Hence his crimes were sadosexual motivated".
You dont know why these acts occurred or if the killer had a fantasy anymore than anyone else.If the murders were ritual sacrifices and the mutilations were ritual then his crimes were not sadosexual. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:07 pm | |
Garry,In your reply to Tom you mention the marks on Eddowes face and the flesh stripped from Kelly's thigh. Then you add, "These acts occurred because the offenders fantasy was anchored in the sadistic destruction of women. Hence his crimes were sadosexual motivated".
You dont know why these acts occurred or if the killer had a fantasy anymore than anyone else.If the murders were ritual sacrifices and the mutilations were ritual then his crimes were not sadosexual. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:12 pm | |
| Rose, What I do claim is that you are a total idiot if that is plain enough for you. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:22 pm | |
| Hi David. Strides death was instantaneous she never had one or two minutes.The man seen to throw her to the ground was not her killer and the police at the time also said he may not have been her killer. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:54 pm | |
Rich,
I dont know where you are getting your information from but as far as British law goes it certainly does attempt to determine the state of an individuals sanity when they commit crime.I worked as a medical orderly in Wandsworth Prison Hospital for a period of six months during one of two visits there.I have seen many remand prisoners having their sanity assessed to determine their frame of mind when their offences were committed.This had nothing to do with their ability to plead either. Certain crimes ( like arson for example ) meant that the defendant's sanity at the time of the crime must be assessed prior to trial.This can mean the difference between getting anything from 2-5 years in prison or receiving a life sentence. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 03:29 pm | |
Hi Ivor,
This is my last attempt to clarify.
I have made a very narrow statement and your replies continually attempt to broaden it. Here it is once more:
When assessing the guilt or innocence of a suspect, the law does not attempt to determine if the person was sane or insane in a clinical sense. The law only tries to determine whether the person had the judgement to determine right from wrong or whether they had an irresistable impulse to commit the crime.
The law, when assessing guilt, does not care whether the person suffers from mental illness. The question of mental illness only occurs with regard to whether the person has the ability to stand trial (can they adequately assist in their own defense) and with regard to sentencing.
Mental illness can be a mitigating factor with regard to sentencing - it is not in terms of guilt. Guilt rests solely upon the two areas I have outlined in regards to sanity - could the person understand right from wrong and were they able to control their actions.
This is why frequently severely mentally ill people are found guilty and sent to prison. The majority of murderers do suffer from mental illness but it is not regarded as debilitating. Ergo, most murderers are sent to prisons instead of hospitals.
Rich |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 03:36 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
With regard to (1) you either do or don't. The orientation of an imaginary object is determined in the geomancer's mile.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 08:29 pm | |
Hi Ivor.
You appear to believe that I discern no ritualistic element in the Whitechapel Murders. On the contrary, there are clearly apparent ritualistic undertones in the mutilations - essentially the Ripper's crime scene signature. I also discern in these crimes an unmistakable sexual engine. What I fail to see, however, is any indication of an occult influence. Still, perhaps I will better understand your rationale once your book is generally available.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 08:34 pm | |
Hi Rich,This situation is quite simple your first statement was, "The law in the US and Britain NEVER tries to determine the sanity or madness of criminals".
I cannot speak for the laws in the US,
In England the law does try to determine the sanity of criminals. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 12:31 am | |
Greetings all:
As far as the US goes, I refer to my post in the Diary thread dated August 18th as follows:
If I recall correctly, in order to be found not guilty due to insanity, there has to be proof that the accused was in a state of psychosis at the time of the crime. In other words, he/she was not in reality. To expound on this further, "not in reality" generally means that he/she did not recognize that what he/she did was wrong.
There is a difference between being mentally ill and insane in the legal sense. One may be mentally ill, and still know that killing is wrong. And it is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the killer did not know right from wrong.
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: I do not think that the Ripper was legally insane, but I do agree that he was mentally ill.
It is my understanding that the UK handles this in much the same manner (wasn't this the M'Naughten ruling, class?) and both the US and the UK do evaluate the defendant to determine his/her mental fitness to stand trial. If he/she is deemed unfit (mentally unstable) to stand trial, the trial can be postponed until their condition is stabilized. And, if I recall correctly, "fit for trial" would mean that the defendant understands what he/she has been charged with and understands the difference between right from wrong. This does not mean that they cannot be mentally ill, as I have stated before.
I'm sure that if I am in error, there are others more knowledgeable that will correct me. It's late, I'm sick, and too lazy to go check my text books.
Warm regards (with a head cold and ear infection),
Divia |
