|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 09 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
David Cohen:
Archive through 09 January 2003
Author: Gregory Boston
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 01:15 pm |        | The talk of freemasonry amongst individuals who study that "Jack The Ripper" murders is abundant. People who subscribe to this theory often point out that freemasonry is a secret society that, in those days, only admitted the wealthy. True, they probably helped each other out as far as getting the most important posts, etc, and perhaps it went as far as covering for people who did various crimes. It is my opinion that no freemason would ever cover for anyone murdering innocent women. Freemasonry is not a secret society, it is merely a society with secrets - and believe that makes a big difference.
I am a trained police officer in the United States, and based soely on my training and experience I have to say that I agree with the "David Cohen Theory"
Jack The Ripper was not a member of royalty, not a butcher, not a physician, and most certainly not a failed lawyer.
Jack The Ripper was a man with a severe, degenerative, mental problem. The David Cohen theory is the most logical.
By starting this thread I hope to generate more talk on the David Cohen Thoery!! |
Author: David Jetson
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 02:23 pm | | I have to admit, since I recently renewed my interest in this case, David Cohen (or Kasminsky or whatever) is looking to me like the best suspect.
I agree that all the conspiracy theories are complete nonsense. I agree that Jack was definately suffering from severe mental problems, and they were getting worse.
It is true, though, that some serial killers can "keep up appearances" well enough to avoid capture, some of them forever. Look at the famous serial killers that have never been identified, like the Green River killer or the Zodiac. I know that there are theories held by the police about the identities of these killers, but no-one has ever been charged, let alone convicted.
Other killers lasted for years before being captured, and had higher bodycounts than most people attribute to JtR. Peter Sutcliffe, for instance, (the "Yorkshire Ripper") or Ted Bundy.
Still, reading about other serial killers, people whose crimes are comparable to the Ripper, shows us that they have certain similarities that tend to rule out conspiracies of secret societies, etc.
I think the common link is that they're under-achievers, none of them seems to have been successful at much besides killing people. Which sort of rules out prominent members of society and royalty, etc. I think Jack was expressing frustration as well as hatred of women. There is definately a sort of "showiness" about the crimes that suggests someone who wanted the crimes to be noticed. There were certainly much more discreet ways of bumping off victorian whores if that were the only reason. |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 03:47 pm | | I don't see any evidence for Jack having had severe mental problems or for any worsening of his mental state.
In fact, quite the opposite. Because the murders were spanned out over several months and the time interval between them just kept getting larger, as well as the clearness of thought that was most likely needed to make a successful escape from each of the scenes, it appears clear to me that the killer couldn't have been someone who was breaking down.
It seems rather more likely that Jack was like most notorious serial killers in that they are psychopathic (basically morally corrupt) but able to function within society at the same mental level for years.
If you are looking for more discussion on Cohen / Kosminski / whatever name people are trying to pigeon together to be the same person, you can do a keyword search (see left frame) on the boards. There are already several threads here focused on this suspect.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: julienonperson
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 04:52 pm | | David Jetson,
I agree with you to a point on David Cohen.There was no question at all that he was a lunatic and I would certainly think that anyone who could perform those atrosities on the prostitutes most
certainly must have been mad, I think that Cohen
was too obviously deranged. Who would have gone
with him after the first murder, considering his
actions? However, it is possible that his actions
were normal up to the time that he was placed in
the asylum. I am inclined to think that Jack was
not obviously mad. He was able to put up a front
when necessary, but would David Cohen have been
intelligent enough, and genteel enough to fool the
old girls and the police?
He is a very good suspect though.
best wishes julie |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 09:30 pm | | "I don't see any evidence for Jack having had severe mental problems or for any worsening of his mental state. In fact, quite the opposite. Because the murders were spanned out over several months and the time interval between them just kept getting larger, as well as the clearness of thought that was most likely needed to make a successful escape from each of the scenes, it appears clear to me that the killer couldn't have been someone who was breaking down."
Mr. Norder,
Your imagination is too small.
We don't need to have specific crime scene evidence that the perpetrator was undergoing a breakdown in order for him to have been undergoing a breakdown. Fido's case for Cohen is based upon the nature of tertiary syphillis. It has been understood for many years, back at least as far as the 1930s, that the protozoans eating the victims brain tissue don't cause progressive symptoms. They can be well-established, digesting away for several years, before overt acting-out symptoms appear. The victim can be very sick from syphillis, can be quite megalomaniacal in his thinking, can be quite insane, but need not show overt irrationality until reaching a certain point. Manifestly, Cohen did show evidence of reaching this point when he was arrested.
There is in short nothing to criticise logically in Fido's position, and everything to recommend it. It is entirely plausible from medical and psychiatric standpoints.
This is yet again example of the teensiness of depth of your thought on the case. You are indeed a dangerous man. Once again, I feel sad for the hundreds who post here who aren't able to see through you, and proceed to take what you say on faith.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 09:41 pm | | Hi all,
The originator of the Cohen suspect, Martin Fido, wrote an excellent book on his theory entitled "The Crimes, Detection, and Death of Jack the Ripper." Mr. Fido has a dissertation on his theory posted on this website. He formerly used to contribute to these threads as well. He is man of great capacity and intellect, and a respected crime historian.
Little has been said by other "ripperologists" in favor of his theory. Indeed, many have been dismissive. I, personally, have always found this suspect compelling.
My main doubt about the theory is that Cohen was just 23 years old when arrested - and this appears to contradict the witness testimony of likely Ripper suspects.
Nonetheless, there is little doubt that one of the witnesses identified Cohen/Kaminsky/Kosminski. This is not to be taken so lightly.
The controversy over the killer's mental state has raged for years. Police, profilers, and psychologists have suggested the killer's mind was breaking - hence the rage of the murderer escalated as demonstrated by the violence against his victims. This seems to be the consensus of experts based on their training in criminology.
A few believe the killer did not suffer severe mental problems - that the murderer was simply immoral. The fact is, we just don't know.
If you believe that the killer was going insane (clinically, if not legally), than suspects such as Cohen and Kosminski who were institutionalized for insanity are suspects that make sense.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 09:45 pm | | | Dan: I got an idea. You want me to pick you up in Wisconsin,we split the driving and expenses,and drive to,oh,Connecticut just for a goof ? Get back to me. HB |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 03:34 am | | David,
You said: "We don't need to have specific crime scene evidence that the perpetrator was undergoing a breakdown in order for him to have been undergoing a breakdown."
The same sort of logic could be used to say that we don't need evidence that Jack was an alien from Uranus in order for it to be true.
The evidence we have indicates that he was not experiencing a mental breakdown. Further, later cases of a similar nature in which the killer has been caught have shown that those people were not suffering severe mental problems. Thus anyone who assumes the killer must have been deranged and crazy are leaping to conclusions unsupported by facts just because they imagine it to be so.
Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 04:28 am | | Rich,
I don't think it's fair to assume that the person rumored to be picked out by the Jewish witness was Kosminsky. Beyond that, Schwartz seems to be the one who made that identification, and the person he saw may not have even been Stride's killer. Further, many people think that the person who killed Stride was not Jack the Ripper, as brashly rushing out to attack someone with witnesses present was not the Ripper's normal style.
That kind of act is more likely to be committed by someone who is quite angry (Kidney, perhaps) or crazy. In the other killings the Ripper took pains to make sure others weren't likely to be watching, so it seems very illogical to assume he would make an exception for Stride.
And you're kidding about the supposed concensus of opinion on the killer's mental state, right?
Sure, the police in 1888 tended to believe the Ripper was a raving lunatic, but they had absolutely no background in hunting serial killers and nobody to contact for expert help.
These days there is a wide range of opinions on the subject. You can go back to the whole organized versus disorganized serial killer argument here for the various sides. But then even many of the people saying Jack was disorganized do not think he was crazy.
Howard,
Ummm... thanks, I think...
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:39 am | | Gregory,
In selecting Cohen,what,as a police officer,would you consider strong reasons for suspicion against him. |
Author: Gregory Boston
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 06:51 am | | As a police officer you want to be able to see through the hype and sensatoionalism that sorrounds the case. I imagine that the detectives on this case had never dealt with that amount of sensationalism over murdered prostitutes before. So, as you can imagine they might have had a hard time seeing the forrest for the trees.
With that being said, and sitting in my office hundreds of years later, I (and we) can look at this case without the sensationalizing the facts.
When your looking for an m.o. (modus operandi)there are several things to consider. Patterns are important with any type of killings. I do not believe Martha Tabram was a victim of JTR, simply because it doesn't fit the pattern of the other 5 murders. I observed that in all but 1 of the 5 murders there was little or no mutilation to the face of the victim, and this would indicate the killer did not know the victim. The last murder, Mary Kelly, had severe mutilation to the face. With that being said, I do not think this indicates the murder knew the victim. I believe that the mutilation to Kelly's face was simply a result of the killer being allowed to do as he pleased with little or no time constraints.
Why is Cohen a good suspect for me? Because of the descriptions listed in Cohen's records that Fido found. Fido is correct to believe that JTR had a degenarative mental condition.
Being a "nut" the police probably wouldn't bother with him anyway, and that theory makes more snese to me then a royal coach traveling through the poorest neighborhood in London. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:14 am | | Hi Dan,
Sir Robert Anderson said that a witness identified the suspect. Donald Swanson, Anderson's subordinate, in later years identified the suspect as Kosminski.
I think that makes the case stronger than a "rumor." I understand that both men could have been wrong.
As you acknowledge, the witness was most likely Schwartz who saw a man assaulting Stride. You are correct that it is possible that Schwartz saw someone else confronting Stride shortly before her murder and she was killed by someone else. Or, it is possible, that Stride was killed by someone else other than the Whitechapel murderer.
Nonetheless, there is strong evidence that Schwartz did identify Cohen/Kaminsky/Kosminski. On this matter, I think the works of Fido and Begg are definitive. I understand there are those who reject the view put forward by these authors.
My personal view is that Schwartz identified Kosminski assaulting Stride, but that Kosminski may not have been "Jack the Ripper."
As to your other point, as far as I know, no major author has suggested that the Whitechapel murderer was not suffering from severe mental problems (leaving aside the question of sanity). Others are either silent or say we do not have enough evidence.
Whether a killer is organized or disorganized has nothing to do with whether he suffers from mental problems.
Besides a few internet posters, can you name any expert on the case who has written that the killer suffered no mental problems?
I don't know the killer's mental state - and I really don't know how someone who does not even know the identity of the killer can state categorically he did not have severe mental problems.
How do you know?
Rich |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:37 am | | "I observed that in all but 1 of the 5 murders there was little or no mutilation to the
face of the victim, and this would indicate the killer did not know the victim."
Hi Gregory!
Actually, Eddowes suffered extensive facial mutilations as well.
It was also reported in the press that she had told the Shoe Lane superintendent that she hoped to claim the reward offered for apprehension of the mudererer, as she "thought she knew him".
Sir Robert |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:06 am | | Dear David Radka-- I'm puzzled by your post. I see nothing in David Cohen's case records that indicate that he suffered from tertiary syphilis, nor do I recall Martin Fido ever making such a claim. Neuro syphilis is the final stage of the disease, and, if I understand it correctly, is more akin to dementia than to anything approaching "raving lunacy."
Martin's claim seems to be that the increased police patrols in the East End frustrated Cohen to the extent that his mental disorders became more overt. He compares Cohen to Dahmer. Respectfully submitted. RJP |
Author: David Jetson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:07 am | | I should make clear what I was saying when I agreed that JtR was "suffering a degenerative mental illness."
There are many misconceptions about mental illness. I am not a mental health professional, but I have studied psychology and I keep up with the theories and treatments.
Part of the reason for the misunderstandings is the "insanity defense" that exists in many countries, which is a legal question and not any kind of diagnosis.
To be considered "insane" in the legal sense, you must be able to prove that, at the time of the crime, you were not capable of telling right from wrong. Personally, I feel this is not a good way to use the terms "insane" or "mentally ill" because you can be as crazy as a loon, or have a severe mental illness, without losing your sense of right and wrong.
The people that genuinely don't know that cutting up some woman is wrong are very very rare. Personally, I'm sure that our Jack was well aware that it was wrong to kill people, so I don't consider him to have been legally insane.
Most serial killers DO understand that killing people is wrong, they simply choose to obey their desires rather than supress them - which is clearly a moral choice and clearly a choice to behave in an immoral way.
Now, they might feel justified, like Peter Sutcliffe felt justified in killing prostitutes because one cheated him once, but he clearly understood that it was not only illegal but immoral to behave that way, so despite his protestations that's why he ended up in prison and not a mental instituion.
He knew the difference between right and wrong and chose to behave in a way that he knew was wrong. Therefore, not legally insane.
Now, obviously Sutcliffe, and our Jack too, were barking loonies. Whacking strangers over the head with a hammer, or strangling them and cutting their throats, is not something that a sane person does. They were crazy without a doubt, in the psychological sense, but not in the legal sense.
Mental illness is not one thing, it's a whole range of different things. I think it's safe to say that Jack (and serial killers in general) was a psychopath in the clinical sense. Actually, I prefer the term "sociopath" which means the same thing but has a closer relation to what the term actually means than the way the word psychopath is popularly used.
A sociopath is someone who has no empathy. Someone who does not believe that anyone but themselves is a real person. Who has absolutely no regard for the feelings or rights as others. A sociopath can kill a person with as much emotion as you or I put into swatting a fly. Usually they don't, because they fear the consequences of the crime, like jail, rather than because they have any moral qualms.
Many sociopaths function well in society, occasionally they can be quite successful.That's because they choose to obey laws due to the fear of punishment. But they have absolutely no regard for the emotions of others.
It's worth mentioning that a sociopath is NOT an emotionless being - they tend to be deeply and passionately in love with themselves, and very caring about their own personal feelings. It's just that they don't have any feelings for anyone else. Some of them function well by faking it.
(As an aside, one of the unpleasant aspects of my life has been that I have had to deal with heroin addicts, and an interesting thing about heroin is that it can turn a relatively normal person into a sociopath. If you've ever had to deal with the kind of disgusting human slime that would steal the rings off his dead mother's fingers to pay for smack, you know how a sociopath behaves. Heroin seems to bring out latent sociopathy, I guess. This is a personal observation, not anything clinical.)
Anyway, Jack was, I am sure, a clinical sociopath, and mentally ill in that sense. He is likely to have suffered from other conditions, too, and I feel that they would have been degenerative in the sense that he was never going to be cured. He would have got worse.
However, he was relatively functional in society, in that I'm sure he held down a job and wasn't wandering the streets talking to invisible people. He wasn't obviously insane, or obviously homicidal.
He may have been delusional in the clinical sense, hearing voices or seeing visions, but I don't believe that he was suffering from the kind of schizophrenia that causes really obviously crazy behavior. If he heard voices or saw visions, it was something he dealt with most of the time. This kind of illness does tend to cause a person to get worse over time, so it's possible that Jack went from being functional to being obviously crazed, and that's why the crimes stopped.
I think he must have been stopped in some way, either by physical or mental illness, imprisonment, or death. Serial killers just don't get better, they will keep killing for as long as they can get away with it, and they can change their MO to disguise their crimes - they're often quite clever.
Cohen/Kaminsky seems to me to fit that profile better than anyone else I've heard of in relation to these crimes. Certainly better than most other suspects. If Martin Fido's theories about Cohen/Kaminsky's identity are right, I think we have the best suspect we're ever likely to find. |
Author: Gregory Boston
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:24 am | | I agree with R.J. Palmer when he states: "I think we have the best suspect we're ever likely to find."
In my opinion, JTR was:
M/W, 18 to 30 years old.
Reasonably intelligent (educated to some extent)
average build
extemely unconfident with himself
Unhappy with life
paranoid
the paranoia took the form of schizophrenia, a degenerative mental disorder when not treated
Interesting, you don't hear much talk of JTR being a man who had schizophrenia, but there is much talk of him being a sociopath. Wonder why? |
Author: Gregory Boston
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:25 am | | Sorry....I meant...."I agree with david jetson"
wasn't paying attention!! |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:36 am | | Mr. Palmer,
Nathan Kaminsky was diagnosed with syphillis. Mr. Fido considers him the best candidate for being David Cohen. If you want to talk Cohen, then you have to encompass syphillis in your talking, because the diagnosis of Kaminsky was made. Otherwise, you have to drop Kaminsky from the Cohen theory, and then you lose the "K-something-ski" connection of which Mr. Fido is fond, because it helps justify the notion that Swanson and McNaghten are writing about a police confusion of suspects. And if you drop Swanson and McNaghten, you are left just a little north of nowhere concerning the Cohen theory. Syphillis is known to be a degenerative brain disease that occurs in stages. David Cohen apparently underwent a stage progression, into dementia, soon after he was arrested. Cohen could then have died before the paralytic phase of syphillis took hold.
It is a little window, but a window nonetheless, that Mr. Fido has opened in the evidence. I for one don't accept it, because it is too small and far-flung from an evidentiary viewpoint. But I must respect Mr. Fido for it, because it is logical.
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 12:12 pm | | Dear David R.--Many thanks. I appreciate your admiration for Martin Fido, and share it. The point is, though, if David Cohen, was, in fact, Nathan Kaminski, the 'mania' he suffered could not have been tertiary syphilis, since Kaminsky was treated and cured by the workhouse infirmary in Spring 1888. The disease did not have time to advance and thus Cohen's raving state could not be connected to the disease.
My personal view is that the Swanson marginalia leaves Cohen [via Macnaghten] a little north of nowhere. A wandering lunatic in a sea of 900,000 souls.
..but I'm still listening. Cheers, RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 12:19 pm | | | Yes, and by the way, I know they didn't really cure the stuff. |
Author: David Jetson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 12:21 pm | | As I understand it, Martin Fido is saying that Cohen/Kaminsky (or whatever the name was) and Kosminsky were two different people, and both were investigated by the police. Kosmisky was considered cleared, while Kaminsky was renamed David Cohen (after he got locked up) and was considered to be the likely suspect.
Later, the similarity in the names of these two men caused them to be confused, which explains why some of the stories from various cops seem to say that Kosminsky was the one they considered guilty.
Unique as it was, these cops worked on hundreds of other cases, and given the fact that even 115 years ago, name spelling was pretty arbitary, and it's only since we all got numbered by governments that names were standardised, I don't think it's unreasonable that two similar names would get confused by the police years after the events. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 12:50 pm | | from Swanson's marginalia:
"On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by the police..."
from David Cohen's asylum records:
Name & Abode of Nearest Relative--& Degree of
Relationship: Unknown.
Isn't a faulty memory for names rather an unconvincing way to reconcile this very significant difference between Cohen & Anderson's suspect? Cheers. |
Author: David Jetson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 01:28 pm | | I haven't got a copy of Swanson's marginalia, and I don't have time to seek one out right now. Could you tell me where to get a copy so I can re-read it?
I'm not convinced that it was Cohen/Kaminsky that did the crimes, all I said is that the Cohen theory fits the facts better than any other I've heard.
I don't think it's possible to say any suspect definately did it - I incline towards the theory that it might have been someone that none of us have ever heard of. It might have been Edward Buchan, or some other person who has only ever been mentioned as a possible suspect by people who are basically pulling names from the surviving records.
The only things I'm sure of are that he wasn't anyone famous and it wasn't a conspiracy. So while we can eliminate Prince Eddie and Sir William Gull, and any combination of the police, and Walter Sickert and Lewis Carrol and Fydor Dosteyevski and H Rider Haggard and Charles Dickens and Karl Marx and HG Wells and all of the other ridiculous "suspects" - we can't prove it wasn't just some whacko that nobody has ever heard of.
I'm not trying to prove it was Cohen, so if Martin Fido is proved wrong, fine. All I'm saying in this thread is that if there is a better thory and suspect than the one Martin Fido has come up with, let's hear it. I'm certainly not saying his theory is perfect, I'm saying that it seems less imperfect than the others I've heard. |
Author: Gregory Boston
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 01:36 pm | | | Martin Fido is the closest anyone has gotten thus far. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 01:39 pm | | David Jetson wrote:
Later, the similarity in the names of these two men caused them to be confused, which explains why some of the stories from various cops seem to say that Kosminsky was the one they considered guilty.
I can believe any amount of confusion on the part of Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson.
But isn't the problem this - the only hard evidence in favour of any "Polish jew" theory is the identification, and Swanson's description of this makes it clear that it's not Cohen he's referring to, even if the different names are supposed to be explained by confusion?
Most importantly, the statement that the identification took place at the Seaside Home, which didn't exist until after Cohen's death. |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 04:35 pm | | Greg Boston
I certainly agree that Jack the Ripper was a person of mental degeneration. Let's face it how
can any person in their right mind commit the type
of crimes that Jack did? I am still convinced that
once he approached them or vise versa, he lost all
control. He did not murder for sex, or so we've
been told, so why? Cohen/ Kosminski does certainly
fit the bill, but only if he was not showing any obvious signs of total mental loss. Chalk it up to
temporary insanity I guess. I realize there are
certain posters who disagree with this observation, which of course is their choice, that
is why the board works so well. Theories and good
opinions, background in law, etc all help to bring
us closer to Jack's identity, however there are
those who post here whose opinion in their opinion is the only opinion but only to them. I
now totally ignore posts of petty fighting, he said she said or too high and mighty to answer a
post assuming that the poster's opinion is not
important. All our opinions are important, we are
as good as the best of them and as bad as the rest of them.
Enjoyed your post.
goodluck Julie |
Author: Chris Phillips
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:52 pm | | | The most pertinent Swanson marginalia are given in Stewart P. Evans' dissertation Kosminski and the Seaside Home on this site. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 06:04 pm | | Sir Robert,
Second time you've stated iy, but incorrect, surely? Rather than Shoe Lane (City), you mean the Mile End casual ward off Bancroft Road.
Regards, V. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 06:44 pm | | Hey Viper,
I defer to your better wisdom, but I was taking my information from the A-Z, p. 122-123 under the entry for Eddowes. They say it was Shoe Lane, but that one press report attributed it to the superintendent of the Mile End.
Regards,
Sir Robert |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 07:04 pm | | The problem we have here is that people are tossing different terms that are used for completely different mental conditions around as if they were the same thing or more related than they really are. Even David Jetson, who tried to explain insanity and sociopathy then jumped to saying Jack had to be crazy to do the things he did and falsely linked sociopathy to a degenerative illness.
Here's what these terms mean and how they relate to the ripper killings:
Insanity: This is a legal term for not being able to tell right from wrong, as David said. More importantly, by not knowing things were wrong, an insane person wouldn't try to hide them in any way. He would have casually admitted to anyone he talked to that he gutted the prostitutes people are talking about, and probably wouldn't have even left the scenes of the crimes. When Charles Cross came up to Nichols' body, Jack would likely have been atop it it, merrily running the knife through the flesh, without any concept that he should be running away.
It's possible he could have been temporarily insane, but the concept that he could have flipped in and out of it for the killings and then not done something about it when sane is extremely far-fetched. Most true cases of murder while insane are one event, not spread over months.
Jack was clearly not insane.
Sociopathy: High falultin' word for lack of morals and no empathy for other humans. There are questions about how much this is really a mental disorder and how much it's just that the people are unrepentantly evil. Keep in mind though that this condition is not degenerative and is not linked to any other disorder that is relevant to this discussion. Sociopaths are not more likely to be schizophrenics and do not spiral down into increasingly poor mental functioning. They are essentially in their right mind but evil. Cool, calculated, and planned.
It's very likely that Jack was a sociopath.
Schizophrenic: This is a term that means someone split off from reality with some sort of fantasy or delusions about the way the world works. There are lots of different versions of this, the must well-known being paranoid schizophrenia. This disorder can get worse over time. Generally these people don't function too well, especially in advanced stages. The worse it is, the less likely they are to hide it or deal with it.
Frankly, there's no evidence to suggest Jack had any form of schizophrenia. The less in touch with reality someone would be, the less likely that they could successfully sneak in or talk their way into a residence or secluded area with someone or escape unnoticed. Getting Eddowes or MJK alone, ripping, and successfully escaping without being caught requires one to have to deal with an all too real reality that the police and vigilance committee is out there, along with other people, and especially the women in question (barring a blitz attack out of nowhere, for which there is next to no evidence) are worried and on the look out for a killer. It is extremely unlikely that someone could be getting progressively worse and degenerating mentally and pulling off what the ripper did. Even if he had gotten away, the next day when he'd be talking, someone would have to know something was up. You don't just hide this disease, *especially* in a society with no way of treating it.
Thus it's all but impossible that Jack could have been schizophrenic or degenerating mentally.
Crazy/lunatic: Generic terms of little value since the definitions are not agreed to, but generally meaning people who can't tell reality from fantasy.
Other than blanket assumptions that don't hold up psychologically or in other cases of serial killings (like "someone has to be out of their mind to mutilate someone else"), there is no evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that could link Jack to any mental disorder other than sociopathy.
If anyone has any evidence that could possibly support the idea that Jack was mentally ill, please let me know. If you want to assume Jack was crazy without any evidence, or to try to back up an otherwise unlikely suspect, that's your right, but it's just not supported by the available facts.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 08:12 pm | | Actually the problem we have here is that there is
as much evidence to support Jack being insane or
mentally unstable as there is to support the fact
that he was not insane.
I don't need to have definations explained to me
by another who seems to think that he or she is
very obviously correct, WRONG.
It is really a waste of time to explain the various terminologies concerning mental illness. I
am also not green where the law is concerned. It
never ceases to amaze me how some people naturally
assume that certain posters are unaware of the
facts when it concerns topics that said person
wishes all to believe that he or she is a qualified expert. Please don't forget the fact that there are qualified experts who do not share
the same opinions as yourself. Experts disagree on
a regular basis. The diary would not be in question right now if the experts had all agreed.
Don't think you are the only one that has all the
right answers. You're not the only expert remember. |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 08:13 pm | | Hello all,
I thought I might be able to usefully contribute to this thread.
Some 19 years ago, as a young (and handsome)Medical student I saw a patient who had "GPI"(General Paralysis of the Insane),ie.Tertiary(Third stage) Syphilis.
Ironically, he was an elderly Polish seaman!
He was completely Psychotic, ie.He had no idea or notion of Reality or time . He was incapable of intelligable speech. He was unable to hold a Knife or fork for the purpose of eating due to his Psychomotor dysfunction.
If we had transported this Gentlemen back to Whitechapel in 1888 , he would have been Physically and Mentally incapable of being "Jack the Ripper" .
Another point worthy of note - He was completly non-violent and totally harmless.
I am inclined to agree with Dan that "Jack's" behaviour is indicative of Psychopathic tendencies ,whether he was "organized" or "dis-organized" in terms of his Modus Operandi I am undecided upon, - I can see facets of both .
I hope this is of some use.
Regards,
Trevor. |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:20 pm | | Julie wrote:
"It is really a waste of time to explain the various terminologies concerning mental illness."
No, it's not. We all need to be using the same definitions (and preferably the right definitions, of course) or else there's no point in even trying to have a discussion on the issue.
I'm sorry I assumed you didn't know what the words meant. I naturally thought from the fact that you (and others here) used the terms incorrectly that you didn't know. It seems silly to purposefully use them wrong, after all.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:07 pm | | Hi Julie,
I nicked the following from the Web....somehow I feel that it just doesn't capture JtR. You're talking about someone that tried to decapitate sveral victims ON THE STREET, let alone the horror of the MJK kill. I think we're talking about someone, to quote John Douglas, "pretty much at the end of his mental rope" .
Sir Robert
***********************************
Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or sociopathy. Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the
feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people
if the they commit isolated antisocial acts and do not show signs of another mental disorder.
Antisocial Personality Disorder is chronic, beginning in adolescence and continuing throughout adulthood. There are ten general symptoms:
not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
emotional immaturity
lack of guilt
self-centeredness
People with this disorder may exhibit criminal behavior. They may not work. If they do work, they are frequently absent or may quit suddenly. They do not consider other people's wishes, welfare or
rights. They can be manipulative and may lie to gain personal pleasure or profit. They may default on loans, fail to provide child support, or fail to care for their dependents adequately. High risk
sexual behavior and substance abuse are common. Impulsiveness, failure to plan ahead, aggressiveness, irritability, irresponsibility,
and a reckless disregard for their own safety and the safety of others are traits of the antisocial personality.
Socioeconomic status, gender, and genetic factors play a role. Males are more likely to be antisocial than females. Those from
lower socioeconomic groups are more susceptible. A family history of the disorder puts one at higher risk. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:21 pm | | Hi all and especially the newbies,
Another poster wrote:
"If anyone has any evidence that could possibly support the idea that Jack was mentally ill, please let me know. If you want to assume Jack was crazy without any evidence, or to try to back up an otherwise unlikely suspect, that's your right, but it's just not supported by the available facts."
Do not be discouraged and think you are wrong or foolish if someone on these boards ridicules your opinion or the way you express yourself.
It has been suggested by many of you that Jack the Ripper suffered from serious mental illness - and that this illness was growing worse. We cannot know this for certain because we do not who Jack the Ripper was. But you may be comforted by the fact the most of the real experts, those with experience investigating serial killers (police, psychologists, and crime historians) agree with your position.
I am not going to insist you believe my opinions or definitions of mental illness. I will advise you what I have read the experts say on the matter.
If you want to see for yourself, simply use a search engine and type in the words "Jack the Ripper Mental Illness" and see how many entries you find - many of which are by esteemed researchers.
Dr. Robert K. Ressler, retired from the FBI Behavioral Science Unit, authored two books which discussed the Ripper killings. Here is what he wrote:
"The Ripper had been a 'disorganized' killer who was mentally deranged and became more so with each victim. . .the escalation of violence, the dismemberment, the general disorder of the crime scenes was evidence of this." ("I Lived In The Monster")
"Jack's mental illness would have played a big part on the murder and mutilation of his victims." ("Whoever Fights the Monster")
FBI profiler John Douglas has said the killer suffered from the mental illness of paranoia. British profiler David Canter said Jack the Ripper suffered psychological disturbance (source for both Sugden's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper.")
I have been reading books on this case for 20 years - I have never read one that claimed that the killer suffered no mental illness.
Now, it is possible that all of the authors and experts are wrong about Jack the Ripper's alleged mental illness. And I mean this very sincerely because in many instances accepted conventions have later been shown to be untrue.
Yet the accusation against those of you who hold this position that you are making "assumptions without evidence" is not true.
You have looked at the facts and come to the same conclusion as the experts.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Gregory Boston
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:25 pm | | Call me silly, but if the murderer wasn't insane and if he did not suffer from a degenerative mental disease, then perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye.
In my first post I dismissed the connection to freemasonry off the cuff, and I still believe that this society with secrets had nothing to do with the ripper killings.
But, who then is responsible? If the killer didn't suffer mentally, than it appears that these crimes are ritualistic in nature - because let's face it folks.....normal people just don't do stuff like this!
Does anyone have any knowledge on the occult here? I know a bit, but not much! |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:29 pm | | Dan
Julie wrote
Dan you are a total BORE!!!!! |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:35 pm | | The Fidomanian position is clear:
1. Kaminsky was discovered to have syphillis, but was not cured of it by the infirmary.
2. He was thereafter picked up in a brothel raid by police, along with several prostitutes and the madam.
3. Soon after arrest he became furiously insane.
4. Not knowing who he was, the police gave him the name David Cohen, which is the equivalent of John Smith for Jews.
5. He was placed in the asylum by the police, later said to be identified there by a crime scene witness.
6. At some point, certain police discovered his real name, and then proceded to confuse it with that of Aaron Kosminski, because of the similarity of names. Kosminski was apparently under suspicion himself by other police.
7. The confusion of names is reflected in the marginalia and the memoranda.
8. Syphillis is a slow-progression brain infection, caused by a protozoan called a spyrocete. The spyrocetes eat the brain and the spinal cord. They can be eradicated by penicillin, but the Victorians lacked penicillin.
9. Syphillis has observable stages. The victim becomes very slowly increasingly megalomaniacal over several years. This was the stage Kaminsky was in when he was diagnosed and received treatment. The treatment of course was of no effect. (Friedrich Nietzsche is a good case history of all three stages of syphillis. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of his insanity provided by his friends.)
10. As Cohen, he broke through into the demented stage when arrested.
11. He then died of "exhaustion of mania," i.e. he was so violently demented he tore himself to pieces, before the final paralytic stage could take effect.
12. For a brief interlude in 1888, Kaminsky was just insane enough to generate the Whitechapel murders, but just sane enough to carry them out without being caught.
This is reasonable. Whether it is brilliantly reasonable or merely far-fetchedly so is another matter, but it is reasonable. It agrees to a considerable degree with the known case evidence.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:44 pm | | Hi Gregory,
Do not be dissuaded from your position because some internet poster says you don't know what you are talking about.
Dan's view that Jack the Ripper suffered no mental illness is a position held by no criminal profiler in the world or any reputable psychologist I have ever read.
Dan could be right - and perhaps his argument has persuaded you (which is fine). But his view is not held by the vast majority of serious scholars.
Hi Julie,
I am glad you don't take seriously the put downs that sometimes are fodder around here - your position is held by most of the serious scholars. That doesn't mean its right, but it also means you are no fool for holding that position.
Rich |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:49 pm | | Sir Robert Anderson,
I do agree with Jack being at the end of his
mental rope. That was certainly the point that I
was trying to get across. Other persons disputed
this obvious observation. I am at a loss though to
understand how a raving lunatic could approach the
ladies of the evening, especially after the first murder,and that they would go with this lunatic
to a darkened lane or alley.I visualize him more as the Dr Jekyle Mr Hyde type.
Of course I do no profess to be correct, it is
merely my opinion.
Thank you for your imput. I can certainly
appreciate receiving facts/data when it is
presented in a non boastful manner,as you have done.Tact means a great deal.
regards julie |
|
|
|
|
