Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 01:01 am |        |
Rich,
The only way you win any arguments is to claim that people said things they didn't really say.
For example, nobody at all has claimed that the VFI doctored evidence. Nobody said she was insane. Nobody said pretty much anything that you accuse various people of all across this board.
You try to set yourself up as a martyr by pointing out all the supposedly horrible things everyone else does but conveniently gloss over the fact that you are (with the possible exception of one other person) the person who insults the widest number of people and tries to destroy the most threads.
It's old, Rich. It was already old a couple months back you apologized for your chronic pitbull attacks on everyone and said you would leave the boards for a month to cool down. That worked very well. Unfortunately, you came back and got much worse. Perhaps you need a longer sabbatical this time. You might even consider making it permanent.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 11:55 am | |
Hi Dan,
I take no lessons in charm from you - the same man who last week labeled a newbie someone "delusional" with no grasp of the real world because you didn't like their hobby. And then another for being ignorant - simply because she dared venture the opinion that Jack the Ripper was insane (even though your definition of insanity was wrong).
You usually enjoy bashing new people - expressing how brilliant you think you are. You like attacking people who won't hit back. And you resent those who do.
I do not insult the widest number of people - the only people I ever question are those who bash people with no evidence or support. Like you. You overestimate your legions - most people feel no need to advance the savage personal attacks you seem to enjoy. And they are never the source of any emnity from me.
You know it and I know it.
So continue to cut people up that you think you are superior to - but do not whine when someone hits back.
Every bully knows the price of being a goon is occassionally getting a nose bloodied.
You see, I won't call you names or insult your intelligence (as you do others). What I will do, which leaves you aghast, is when you make some outlandish accusation is ask that you provide proof.
Leave the prosthelitizing to the clerics.
Rich |
Author: julienonperson
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 03:22 pm | |
Richard DeWar
You won't be standing alone waiting for confirmation that Jack was not all there, brainwise. I guess you noticed that I didn't use any fancy technical terms, there is no need to right now, since we don't know who Jack really was.
Since it is doubtful that Jack is still around, he sure won't be standing trial. He won't have a lawyer argue that he was criminally or clinically or mentally insane. This information would certainly serve a good purpose, in the event that Jack was discovered, helping the experts and the general public to try to understand the Why's of it all.
I am of the opinion Jack was insane,I really don't care to receive a long winded explanation of medical terms, that I am quite familiar with myself, that fortunately you did not use in responding to me and insulting my intelligence in order to prove yours.
I am with you, however I would not bother wasting my precious time, by responding to such posts.
You are entitled to your opinion on Jack's sanity,
as we all are, the only difference being, that not all of us want someone else's opinion shoved down our throats. I don't and I am sure you don't,everything within reason of course.
regards
julie |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 03:45 pm | |
Hi Julie,
Thank you, again, for your sensible and reasonable post.
Your view that Jack the Ripper was insane (legally or medically)certainly has merit. I am not certain myself one way or another.
Still, I appreciate your broad-minded approach that an opposing view might have legitimacy.
I apologize that another person here suggested you are ignorant for holding your views. Clearly, you are not.
Don't get discouraged by those who call you names, Julie. That reflects more upon them than you.
I enjoy your posts and again, thank you for the kind words.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 03:55 pm | |
Julie and Rich,
My reasoning behind trying to determine whether or not the Ripper had a mental illness is that by doing so we can use that information to filter out suspects.
Whether or not it is possible to look at a set of behaviors and determine what the personality and mental state of the person responsible is still debated today - it's what profiling and psychology are all about.
And one thing my friend did say is that the only way to confirm any of the proposed diagnoses we come up with is with an interview with the killer himself.
Oh well.
B |
Author: April Cooper
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 04:06 pm | |
Hi again all....
As far as whether or not "Jack the Ripper" was insane, call me naive but I just assumed he was TOTALLY INSANE because of the horrible, unspeakable acts he commited. Now I don't want to stir up a hornets nest here but to me personally ( and everyone had their own opinions that they are entitled to) I feel he was very insane....mainly because no "normal" person goes out and slits another human beings throat or guts them like some kind of animal. These are things we just don't do if we are "normal" people... it seems to me that it's the insane people out there that commit the horrible crimes they do.
Thats just my own personal opinion though.
Have a great day!
April |
Author: julienonperson
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 04:44 pm | |
Brian,
I am surprised at you. You assumed that my comments were directed your way. You assumed wrong. You were not even in my mind when I posted it. We made friends remember. No I was thinking in terms of another person that I do not wish to have contact with at all.
I can still enjoy my time on Casebook without getting into a nonessential, egotistical debate with any person or persons I choose not to communicate with.
Find that crow again.
regards julie |
Author: chris scott
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 04:56 pm | |
April
Thanks for the interesting post.
To me the most important point from this thread is whether the Whitechapel killer would have been VISIBLY insane. I think we can all agree from his acts that he was deeply mentally disturbed but many cases show that such a person can maintain the outward appearance of a "normal" life, holding down a job, even a marriage etc.
While some suspects fall into the VISIBLY deranged (Kosminski eating out of the gutter etc) it may well be that the perpetrator could maintain the appearance of "normal" behaviour in his everyday life
Regards
Chris Scott |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 05:18 pm | |
Hi Brian,
I understand and agree with what your friend said. Whether the existing information we have about the killer's behavior, which is basically just the mutilations, different people have different views on the sanity of the killer.
Hi April,
Thanks for the post - it makes a lot sense. The word insanity means different things to different people - even those in the medical community.
Hi Julie,
I don't think Brian took your post personally insult - I think we all know who you are talking about. Brian, to some extent, shared this person's position. Though while Brian and I frequently disagree about the case, he hasn't resorted to the personal attacks that you have seen from the other poster.
Hi Chris,
I think you raise a good point. During the period the murderer was committing his crimes, I would think it unlikely he appeared to be a "lunatic." Obviously, to some extent, he gave his victims the impression he was "safe." The point you raise is a good one, though.
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 05:55 pm | |
Julie,
Oops! I figured since I had a roll in that debacle, I'd mention why I brought it up.
Now where are those recipes for crow I have...they were laying around here somewhere...
B |
Author: April Cooper
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 09:01 pm | |
Hi Chris and Richard, thank you both for responding to my latest post as to whether or not Jack the Ripper was insane or not. You BOTH make very good points about what I said in my post. Just for the fun of it I looked up the word insane in my dictionary... INSANE : not sane, mentally ill, deranged , demented , mad, of unsound mind. It goes on and on but you get my point.... so I still believe Jack the Ripper was insane... just to what degree I haven't a clue. This brings to mind a few "serial killers" in America, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, Charles Manson.... now I would say they were insane too. I guess I just think a person must have a pretty darn big screw loose to do what these people are all guilty of. Sorry I'm rambling here
I hope I don't offend anyone... just trying to make my point... thanks for reading.
April |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:53 pm | |
Hi April,
You are not rambling at all - your opinion is well considered and agreed upon by many experts.
Take care,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 11:06 pm | |
April,
You wrote: "This brings to mind a few "serial killers" in America, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, Charles Manson.... now I would say they were insane too."
You might say those people are insane, but the courts and psychology experts all say those people weren't.
IT's all a question of knowing what the terms mean. Insane has a very specific and precise definition. Just because someone is, say, a psychopath or otherwise mentally ill does not mean that he or she is insane.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 12:27 am | |
Hi April,
The courts ruled the men you mentioned as "sane" because they have a very high standard for insanity.
Some psychologists found them sane, others insane. The experts disagree.
However, I think I know what you are saying - and I think your view has a lot of merit.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 08:15 am | |
| For a very good discussion on the meaning of "insanity" go to http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~psy001/jk/psych1pp1.html. |
Author: julienonperson
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 12:38 pm | |
Hi Richard,
You need not worry about me getting intimidated. I'v taken on the world of MEN, as a manager for some time and I have certainly learned that petty quarreling is such a waste of time.
I could most likely chew him up and spit him out, no sweat, and no doubt the many men that have worked for me over the years will most certainly agree. I can look after myself, when I choose to, and most of the time I do it tactfully. However. I refuse to get into a debate where the same information is rehashed over & over. Whether or not my opinion is agreed to by all, is totally immaterial. Yes make points to correct or point out information that can disprove a theory, with the appropriate back up documents, but we would be best off ignoring repetitious arguments that get nowhere. Present the facts or your opinion, and accept constructive critism, where applicable, but we need not have the same definations EXPLAINED to us as if we were junior college students being drilled by our professor.
Anyway, there are so many that have so much to give and so many that have so much to learn I hope
it can be done in an amicable manner.
cheers, julie |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 01:38 pm | |
Hi Julie,
I admire your ability to remain civil and composed during the heat of battle - something I know I could learn from.
Rich |
Author: Philip Rayner
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 03:04 pm | |
Ok everyone let's all say it together.
"The ripper was not insane he was mentally ill."
Can we stop this endless debate now.
Dan, whatever you want to call it, mentally speaking the Ripper was not acting within the norm for the time and place in which he lived. This proves that he suffered from a mental abberration or was influenced by outside factors such as alcahol abuse. Attempting do define that in a modern context is laudable but once you have established your views and others views have been added it seems pointless to carry on.
You say insanity is not the same as mental problems, OK ,I agree. You stated that early on and some people disagreed as is their right. As for Richard, his opinion is as valid as yours no matter what you think of it. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 03:11 pm | |
Dan, Rich, why don't you two buggers agree to correspond with anyone,-- EXCEPT EACH OTHER.
what with running Patricia Cornwell's nose in the mud because she had the nerve and the money to publish a Jack the Ripper book, and you two insulting each other at every post, it's getting not worthwhile opening Outlook Express,-- give it a rest. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 07:43 pm | |
Hi Phil,
Thanks for the post.
Hi Rick,
You are right - and I apologize to you and to others for my participation in this feud.
There is plenty of interesting, informative and charming discourse on the boards - such back and forth is quite unnecessary.
I regret any unpleasantness created by my comments.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 06:16 am | |
| Thats okay Rich, |
Author: Eliza Cline
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 02:15 pm | |
With regard to the Ripper's state of mind, it is quite likely he was "sane," (though sanity/insanity are not words that a psychiatrist would ever use), in the sense of having no organic mental illness, being oriented in time and place, and having a clear perception of reality. The Ripper's crimes took plenty of cunning. The timing had to be perfect for him to escape detection. The Ripper clearly knew right from wrong, because he took great care to avoid being caught. The Lusk and Dear Boss letters show no evidence the writer is under any delusions.
There are plenty of sane people who nevertheless have overwhelming anger which they cannot always keep under control. The Ripper was probably a normal-seeming person who for some reason channeled his deep-seated anger toward women, and specifically prostitutes. |
Author: April Cooper
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 02:43 pm | |
Hi Eliza....
You make a very good point about my post whether or not Jack the Ripper was insane. Point taken.
Sometimes I think when I have an opinion about a certain subject it's a bit too simplified. So I tend to agree 100% with what you and the others that responded to my post about Jacks sanity or insanity. Thank you for your insight.
April |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 03:01 am | |
'While the balance of his/her mind was disturbed',was the old British terminology,so while the question of Jack,s sanity is probably open to many answers,the above will do for me.
I would say the Millers Court scene shows some features of a mind disturbed,though whether that disturbance was of a permenant or tempory nature,I couldn't say.
Does it help much?.Not to me.There were probably hundreds of disturbed persons in the local community at that time,and as yet,no person,disturbed or not,can be placed by name in Kelly's room since the previous evening,or at any of the other murder sites. |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 07:15 am | |
HI EVERYONE.
the killers state of mind is very hard to define, the murders to me look like they were planned for certain dates ,and they were carefully and ruthlessly carried out. he must have carried out these deeds in a frenzy and yet had the composure to walk away from the scene in a normal fashion and back to his place of shelter, which surely must have been private accomodation, for nobody could have done such brutal murders and remained completely free of quite significant blood stains. therefore i suggest that he was not in such a form of insanity;that would draw attention to himself but someone who enjoyed stalking a intended victim befriending her,and arranging to meet her on the day of execution . a brutal and sadistic individual who played his funny little games. regards richard. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:02 pm | |
Hi Harry,
I think that's a very sensible and reasoned post on your part.
I think much of the debate about the killer's alleged mental instability actually revolves around an almost political view of crime and punishment.
The conservative trend is to minimize the accountability of psychological and environmental factors that lead to violent anti-social behavior. This goes along with the view that some people are simply evil - they make vicious choices and frequently deserve the ultimate punishment - execution.
The liberal thought tends to see mental illness and a person's past as a significant factor on their current behaviors. Such people tend to not only grieve for the victim, but express a certain degree of sympathy for the victims.
Both sides see the others as characitures - heartless goons vs. soft-headed whiners.
The answers, as usual, are more complex than that.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 04:04 am | |
This is a theme which recurs often. The liberals would ask if Jack had been abused as a child, if he fought in any conflicts, whether he had been betrayed in some way by women. In general they would be searching for reasons why he had decided to step outside the Victorian behavioural norm. On the other hand those of the conservative view would in all likelihood ignore any such factors. As far as they saw, he had placed himself outside the Victorian fold and his crimes would demand the death sentence.
This is a major issue in the UK at the moment. A man living near here caught a burglar in his house and chased him. He caught the man's coat and held him until arrest was made. The magistrates here then gave the criminal permission to bring a private prosecution because of the alleged assault made during arrest.
A burglar also injured whilst engaging in a robbery laid a similar lawsuit because he was a professional criminal and couldn't work due to the injury. He was seeking loss of earnings.
The problem is that each case should be judged on it's own merits but this liberal/conservative ideal means that each side sees crime in terms of ther own blinkered views. In the above cases the liberals would say that the criminals should be allowed to profit from crime as they were injured and would probably deem it right for the owners of the properties be prosecuted for assault. The conservatives would expect a hefty prison sentence for the criminals and a pat on the back for the owners.
As is always the case the truth lies somewhere in between. As far as JTR is concerned the crimes were so terrible that even liberals would have a hard time issuing any defence of his actions. If (as Cornwell contends) there were mitigating circumstances, the liberals would be in danger of alienating themselves from the public by saying so. I feel the general concensus would be that Jack would deserve everything that was coming to him. I do wonder, however, what the sentence would have been if he had been caught. Most likely would be hanging but given the Victorians habit of disposing of embarrassing individuals in asylums this is also a possibility.
BTW I do not think the killer was caught and placed in an asylum with no trial as some have said, the authorities would need to show justice in action. Public opinion would demand a trial. |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 04:53 am | |
As a liberal, I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions here. I don't know of any liberals who would support a criminal suing for lost income because he couldn't commit more crimes.
Beyond just that, liberals know that criminals often were raised in a bad environment, but that doesn't make what they do OK. People still choose to do good things or bad things. This is the whole reason behind the term "insanity"... to not just let anyone who is mentally ill in any way get away with it, but to determine if the person was so far out of it that they couldn't stop themselves.
So, yes, liberals look to ty to prevent crimes by looking at the factors that cause criminals instead of just locking everyone up or killing them all, that's not to say that they excuse them... although some of the most extreme ones do.
Also, most of the stories of lawsuits of criminals suing because they were injured during a crime are urban legends. Some true stories do pop up here and there, but the details of those are often wildly exaggerated. (But then there is some idiot here in the states suing because he claims he didn't realize eating greasy fastfood every meal every day is unhealthy, so I guess anything is possible.)
Stupid lawsuits can be blamed more on lawyers out for cash than any liberal sentiment in favor of them. Most liberals are just as offended by them as everyone else. People like Rush Limbaugh love to pretend otherwise because it makes good entertainment and can be easily turned into political ploys.
As far as Jack goes, I doubt anyone (except perhaps his family, if he had any) would have suggested any leniancy whatsoever. I don't think there's any chance he could have made a good insanity plea (especially at the time) so, if caught, I'm sure he'd be sent to death. This is another reason (beyond just not believing he was obviously deranged) why I doubt that Jack could have been someone the police knew was guilty but left in an asylum instead of prosecuted.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 05:36 am | |
I understand what you are saying Dan and maybe I am judging the liberal side too harshly. There is nothing wrong with a liberal view of an incident. Nor is there with the conservative view. I was merely trying to emphasize that if one view prevails over the other, criminals will try to take advantage of it.
Here in the UK there was an idea a few years back that youth crime was caused by the conditions in which these youths were forced to live. In a few cases, convicted burglars were offered free of charge, safari holidays to Africa. The idea was that they were taken out of those conditions and were given a holiday which would build their self confidence. This is not necessarily a bad thing but immediately it gave someone who had committed a crime a valuable defence I.E. social conditions. It was also seen as enabling people to profit by crime rather than being punished for it. A newspaper printed a cartoon depicting a young lad asking a policeman what he had to do to get a free holiday.
Whatever you think of this, there is a downside to liberal values. If you compare this to the prevailing laws in this country up to the early part of the 1900's, stealing a loaf was enough to get you a hefty prison sentence. In earlier times it could get you a one way ticket to the gallows. This is the downside to conservative values.
As I said, and firmly believe, the truth lies somewhere in between. JTR could have made a good case for 'Diminished responsibilty by reason of mental illness or depression' in a modern court but as you said had no chance of such a defence in 1888. There is room for both philosophies in any given case but when one or other is the prevailing philosophy it can create problems.
Understanding is important but so is ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. If someone steals a car the mitigating circumstances must be taken into account but if they are found to have no bearing then a punishment must reflect that fact. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 02:30 pm | |
Hi Phil,
I think it is generally a true statement that liberals take a more sympathetic view of criminals than do conservatives. The false charge, not made by you but frequently made by others, is that liberals care more about the criminal than the victim.
In general, many so-called "liberals," myself included, opt for shorter sentences and more lenient punishments then the general public.
I think part of the differences are based on the competing evaluation of the justice system by ideologies. A conservative is more likely to the current system as fair.
My personal view is that when it comes to a criminal act, most conservatives are only interested whether the criminal committed the crime - not why the crime was committed. This is in stark contrast to liberals - who often evaluate the punishment required based on motivation rather than the act itself.
A conservative approach to Jack the Ripper might be simply that this was an evil man who decided to hack up women and therefore must be punished severely. A liberal is more likely to consider why the killer committed the crimes.
Both points of view, obviously, have merit.
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 09:54 pm | |
I used to consider myself more or less a Republican, until I started listening to Rush Limbaugh each Friday on my way home from work. What he stands for is, IMHO, monstrous. So now I'm much more centrist.
David |
Author: Robin
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 07:19 pm | |
Richard,
You write: 'A conservative approach to Jack the Ripper might be simply that this was an evil man who decided to hack up women and therefore must be punished severely. A liberal is more likely to consider why the killer committed the crimes.'
Why not go for the compromise: psycho-analyse Jack to your heart's content, and then hang the miserable little git.
Robin |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 12:07 am | |
What JtR did to prostitutes is the same as what Rush Limbaugh did to Al Gore.
David |
Author: April Cooper
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 03:28 am | |
| Ummm David.... Your last post about the Rush Limbaugh... Al Gore thing... there is one MAJOR difference.... Jack the Ripper MURDERED the women, last time I checked Al Gore is still VERY MUCH ALIVE! Soooooo I guess I don't really "get" your post.I guess I thought your post was in poor taste. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 10:37 am | |
David,
You've got take Limbaugh with a grain of salt. Most of what he says is meant to be funny.
And it's not as if Gore didn't deserve it.
B |
Author: Eliza Cline
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 01:22 pm | |
It is a misconception that liberals are "soft on crime." It was the liberal feminists who pushed for crimes such as rape and domestic violence to be taken more seriously by police.
I consider myself pretty liberal, but I don't want criminals on the street. Once someone commits a crime, esp. a violent crime, they should be put away for a long time. At the same time, I am willing to address some things I believe contribute to criminal behavior, such as abusive homes and poverty. Conservatives try to ignore these factors. But we can't just throw people in jail without also trying to correct these social problems. |
