|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 10 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
David Cohen:
Archive through 10 January 2003
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:10 pm |        | Hi Julie,
I think the answer is that these women were desperate in a way we can not hope to fully appreciate. As long as the murderer was not openly displaying a weapon, they would have approached him.
Regards,
Sir Robert |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:15 pm | | Richard
Thanks for your support. Actually I don't give a
rat's behind about Dan's opinion. He acts somewhat
childish at times.
I agree with Sir Robert with respect to profilers
Douglas, Ressler etc,etc. I have read many, many
true crime books. I have been very interested in
the criminal mind. I have experience with Mental
Diseases, I've studied law etc etc. But I do not
try to impress posters with my credentials ,I do
not argue that I am right, prove your case and so
on. It annoys me to no end when persons dispute
a theory or an observation by spelling out the
meanings of descriptive words. They are only words. We must never forget that it doesn't matter
how much experience, expertise, education and
general know how we have, none of us are experts on good
ole Jack, we are learning new things all the time,
and if we think we are such experts on what type a person Jack was, why hasn't these self proclaimed experts solved the case?
Thanks again Rich julie |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:41 pm | | Hi Julie,
Thank you for the kind words - I enjoy your posts as you explore the possibilities of the case. Keep thinking, considering, and sharing with us your views.
Don't ever be discouraged by someone who hopes to elevate themselves by putting you down.
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 12:33 am | | Greg,
You wrote: " 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!"
Psychopaths *do* do this stuff, and the vast majority of all serial killers have been psychopaths who showed no other mental dysfunction (other than a few who claimed some hallucinations but then never showed symptoms, which leads most psychologist to believe they were faking in order to try to claim insanity defense). Thus it's not at all unlikely that that's exactly what Jack was as well.
Let's look at this another way. Some countries torture political prisoners. Generally there's a handful of people in charge of that. They slice, decapitate, kick, twist arms, break bones, burn flesh, etc., and do so for years upon end. Whether these people are psychopaths or just evil, the point is, they do horrible things to people and corpses and are not degenerating mentally or otherwise psychological ill in any way. They function in their society perfectly well, and often are extremely well respected and well liked (except, of course, by their victims).
Keeping that in mind, I can't see how anyone can make the jump to believing that a serial killer has to be wild-eyed crazy. But then some peopple get an idea into their heads and just won't let it go, regardless of what the evidence says.
Belief that people who do these things must be nuts or a practicing Satanist or what-have-you is the same kind of thinking that never got this particular killer caught and wouldn't have caught most of the ones since then.
Repeating the same mistakes that were made in 1888 over and over doesn't get us any closer to finding the killer. That's why I don't put much stock in what the police of that time thought nor anyone today trying to find the killer based upon the police top suspects.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 12:39 am | | Rich and Julie,
So you two are trying to set yourselves up to be the examples of polite and educated debate on this site? Every time anyone disagrees with either one of you you go ballistic and insult them.
Donate a couple bucks and the webmasters here can open a special wing on this board specifically for people to troll, flame, insult and then hypocritically claim that other people are the ones who aren't being nice. If you send enough cash maybe they'll name that area after you.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
(And that goes double for anyone wasting bandwidth on this
site in pointless rehashes of the same stupid arguments.) |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 12:52 am | | Dear David--You're doing a good job of convincing me that Nathan Kaminsky can't be David Cohen.
Nearly every medical treatise I can find states that there are four stages of syphilis.
1. Primary Stage. [Soon after infection]. Chancres and sores. Will go away if untreated in aprox. 4 to 8 weeks.
2. Secondary Stage. Cold-like symptoms. Fever. Sore throat. Swollen lymphs. These symptoms can last 3 to 6 months per outbreak and symptoms disappear and reappear at random.
3. Latent stage. No obvious symptoms. Usually begins 1-4 years after secondary stage. The latent stage can last many years.
4. Tertiary. Crippling disorders, leisions, bone and organ damage, etc. Dementia.
Now what do we know about Nathan Kaminsky?
He was diagnosed syphilitic 24 March, 1888 at the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary. Released as 'cured' [we know this isn't true] six weeks later.
What can we deduce from this?
At what stage are his symptoms likely to disappear after "treatment" in six weeks?
Clearly, this suggest that he was either in syphilitic Stage #1 or Stage #2 . They were able to diagnose his disease because he had outward symptoms. If he was latent, they wouldn't have diagnosed him; if he was tertiary, he wouldn't have been "cured". Most likely, he was in the primary stage [which lasts 4-8 weeks] and the outward symptoms went away on their own. Thus, he was released.
What do we see in David Cohen in December, 1888? A man that is raving mad. If the diagnosis for David Cohen is "tertiary syphilis" [not a particularly good diagnosis] then he certain is a different man than Nathan Kaminsky. Q. E. D.
RJP |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:15 am | | How do you know what stage of syphillis Kaminsky was in when he went to the workhouse infirmary? He could have been latent. The workhouse did not record, I believe, the symptoms they observed and on which they based their diagnosis. How do you know that the stages of syphillis may not have proceded along somewhat faster in his case than in other cases?
Like it or not, Kaminsky is Kaminsky, and Fido says he's Cohen. If you buy Kaminsky, you buy the diagnosis because Kaminsky was diagnosed. I guess it is possible that the infirmary blew the diagnosis, and that Kaminsky really only had a cold sore when he was there. This still wouldn't disqualify him from being Cohen or the Ripper; in that case, we'd probably have to consider him a non-syphillitic psychotic.
On the other hand, megalomania proceding into dementia is characteristic of syphillis. The behavior of Cohen upon arrest therefore may be seen as confirming both the diagnosis and the patient, provided you have a plausible by-line.
David |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:22 am | | Dan,
I have already donated to this website. And since there are very few people that annoy me with their superiorty complex, as yourself, I see
no need to to take your advise.
There are other well versed, knowledgable persons
whose imput I much prefer.
I have no interest in conversing with you at all. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:25 am | | Hi Greg,
Don't be dissuaded from your view that the killer suffered a mental illness that was growing worse just because an internet poster says you are wrong.
Indeed, your view was held in 1888 but it is the same view that every criminal profiler since that time who has written on the case has also advanced. Additionally, no recognized psychologist or reputable author on the subject that I am aware of has ever come to the conclusion different from your own - that Jack the Ripper suffered mental illness.
The ludicrious remark has been made that since some people who practice torture for their governments are not insane (and as the poster incredibly asserts these same professional torturers are often "well respected and well liked" - I wonder by who?), therefore Jack the Ripper was not suffering mental illness.
This ignores the differences between a surgeon and Jack the Ripper. A surgeon, or even a government torturer, engages in actions that we might find harrowing but their actions are proscribed and meant to achieve a certain purpose beyond the individual's selfish desires. This is quite different from someone who derives a sexual or emotional thrill from the same act of savagery.
I am not a psychologist - I have no experience in that field. I make no pretense to such knowledge. I do not know what training the critic possesses that qualifies him to ridicule virtually every expert in the field and those on this thread who support the consensus regarding the killer's mental state.
What I do know is that the position you have advanced is accepted by most criminalists who have studied the case. I have cited and quoted them in previous posts.
This does not mean that the consensus of almost all of the experts is correct. I don't know.
But do not be discouraged because one person, claiming to know more than the experts, ridicules your position.
Thats easy to do when people who simply have opinions masquerade as experts.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:50 am | | Hi Julie,
Remember that the police of the time, every profiler currently, and the vast array of contemporary authors of the case agree with your opinion that Jack the Ripper suffered some form of mental illness. There is one internet poster who disagrees and says everyone else is "ignoring the evidence."
No amount of name calling changes those basic facts. The purpose of attacks and insults is frequently to avoid the points in dispute.
The discussion is about whether David Cohen's clinical insanity in any way matches with the mental illness alleged by most experts of Jack the Ripper.
The debate is not about whether you can define words, whether I am a troll, or how much you contribute to the website - despite what some enraged poster may want it to be.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:09 am | | All,
Let me preface these remarks by saying that I firmly believe that the Ripper killings were sexual serial murders where the motive of the Ripper was fulfillment of his sexual desires.
That being said, I do not believe, nor do I think there is any direct, compelling evidence, to support the theory that the Ripper was insane, or suffered from Schizophrenia or another serious mental defect, beyond paraphilia.
Let me explain: As I stated in the profiling thread, sexual serial killers do not have to be raving lunatics. But their crimes, when viewed by a normal (which is, in and of itself, a relative term) individual can only be explained by the belief in their "insanity.
For example: look at Jeffery Dahmer. The man was killing and eating other men. What sane, normal person would do that? But he was never diagnosed with any kind of a mental disorder. He wasn't depressed. He wasn't bi-polar. He wasn't schizophrenic. He was a psychopath, but that does not necessarily mean he was insane. He was able to tell right from wrong, and to function in society well enough to kill as many victims as he did. From the outside perspective of a normally developed individual his behavior is incomphrensible. None of us can imagine how someone can become aroused by having sex with the headless corpses of men, and eating their flesh.
Then again, some of us cannot understand how homosexual men get aroused by looking at other men. Or how a man can have sex with a sheep. Or how they can can get aroused by "cybersex". Those things aren't considered "normal" by everyone. But does that mean they are symptoms of "insanity"? Are those people insane?
Here's the definition of sexual psychopath as defined in the legal Code of the District of Columbia: "§ 22-3503. Definitions.
For the purposes of §§ 22-3503 to 22-3511: The term "sexual psychopath" means a person, /b{not insane} (emphasis added), who by a course of repeated misconduct in sexual matters has evidenced such lack of power to control his or her sexual impulses as to be dangerous to other persons because he or she is likely to attack or otherwise inflict injury, loss, pain, or other evil on the objects of his or her desire."
Notice that to be considered a "sexual psychopath" you cannot be "insane" in the DC code.
I believe that the evidence points to the Ripper being a sexual serial killer. Thus, let's look at his crimes from that perspective. How did he get to be a sexual serial killer? The Ripper somehow, during his sexual development, began to associate the fantasy of dismembering women with sexual desire. This was his primary motivation in the killings, if my assumption is true. But this motivation wasn't the result of a disease. To be honest, we really don't have any idea why it happens. It just does, to varying degrees, in many people.
Let's look at this from a different point of view: Take someone with a foot fetish. Or a transvestite. Or someone into BDSM (bondage/domination/sadism/masochism). These individuals can be quite normal. They can go their entire lives and be productive members of society without anyone ever becoming aware of their fetish. But they have the same problem the Ripper does: they can't get it up the same way most people do. They get aroused when wearing women's clothes, or when looking at feet, or when beaten. But just looking at Audrey Hepburn wouldn't do it for them (okay, maybe I have an Audrey fetish - does that make me insane?).
Serial killers have the same exact problem, but unfortunately, the object of their fetish or fantasy requires them to kill another person. They get off on the power, or the fantasy, or whatever. It's no different from a foot fetisher, or a transvestite, other than in degree.
There are many perfectly coherent, perfectly sane individuals who are serial killers. There are many perfectly coherent, perfectly sane individuals who are pedophiles. There are many perfectly coherent, perfectly sane individuals who have foot fetishes. Killing and dismembering women, by itself, is not a symptom of mental illness. Nor is pedophilia, nor is partialism (foot fetishes are part of that).
Have there been mentally ill serial killers? Absolutely. Then again, there have also been mentally ill transvestites too. (My brother happens to be one.) And there have been mentally ill people who have done no harm to anyone but themselves.
For anyone who has been mentally ill, or who has known anyone with a severe mental illness, they know that the illness can be totally incapacitating. And from the circumstantial evidence that we have about the Ripper's identity (such as the dates and times he killed the women), he probably held down a steady job. This would have been impossible for someone in the later stages of a serious mental illness, like schizophrenia or syphilis, because the effects of the disease would be too debilitating. My brother only suffers from mild Schizophrenia (which is completely treatable with medication) and he hasn't held a job for more than two months in his entire life.
My personal view is that the Ripper would not have been able to do all of the things he did, in the tight time frames he did them, and not get caught had he been suffering from a severe mental disorder, like tertiary syphilis or schizophrenia. This is based upon my personal experience with schizophrenia, my readings of the effects of mental illness on serial killers and insanity in general, and my knowledge of the case. If you want hard evidence, there really isn't any beyond what has already been mentioned before. Fundamentally, there is nothing in this case that cannot be argued over except that there was somebody murdering women in London in 1888. That's really all we know with 100% certainty.
We all need to be very careful when we label the Ripper as "insane". There are way to many definitions of the word. There's the legal, then there's the medical, and then there's the popular usage, and all three come in varying shades, depending on the perception or intentions of the person saying it. It's very similiar to the definition of "poor" or "rich" or "smart".
So, I guess my point is that I do not feel that there is any evidence to support the supposition that the Ripper was insane, or crazy and that we need to be very careful when we use the term.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:30 am | | Hi Brian,
I do not really follow your post - you seem to make a lot of assumptions about the motivations of the killer. Perhaps you are correct, but they appear to me to be without foundation.
What most people on this thread have proposed is that Jack the Ripper suffered from mental illness. The question of sanity, as a legal definition, I do not believe has been a main argument except by those who refute the theory that Jack the Ripper was mentally ill.
What you and Dan both have done is listed several types of mental illness and given reasons why you do not think he suffered those afflictions when, in fact, I do not believe anyone here is specifically stating the killer suffered those maladies.
I am not an expert on mental illness. I do know that every profiler who has examined the case has come to the conclusion the killer was suffering from mental illness. As far as I know, no clinical psychologist or reputable author on the case has come to the conclusion the killer did not suffer from mental illness.
Respectfully, I wonder to what you attribute your disagreement with all the experts? Is there something they are all wrong about? Is there something you know that they don't?
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Gregory Boston
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 05:40 am | | Dan:
The last time I looked into the matter I discovered that the medical community doesn't consider the average pyshcopath to be apart of the "normal people".
Infact, a pyschopath is abnormal - which is why in college they have a section called "abnormal pyschology" - where pyschopathic behavior is taught.
Don't worry, I still stand fast with my belief that JTR suffered from a degenerative mental problem, and Fido's Cohen theory is the closet theory that aligns with this belief. |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 07:47 am | | Greg,
Of course a psychopath is abnormal, but that's a long ways from someone degenerating mentally. You still seem very unclear on what the various terms describing different mental conditions mean. Oh well.
Wait a minute... oh bloody hell.
I just noticed your profile lists a website that shows that you belong to a group of "Satanist-hunters" who target pagans, Wiccans, Santeria, music and video games.
I'm afraid that this explains a lot about your confusion... you are suffering paranoid delusions about the world yourself.
Here's a clue: Pagans, Wiccans and Santeria-practioners are not Satanic. Self-proclaimed occult-experts who worry about music and video games don't have the slightest clue about any occult beliefs. There is no Satanic conspiracy.
Witch hunting went out of style hundreds of years ago -- wake up and join the rest of us in the 21st century.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:08 am | | Dan,
"I'm afraid that this explains a lot about your confusion... you are suffering paranoid delusions about the world yourself."
Sigh. I don't think that's a fair characterization Dan.
First off, the website is "Under Construction" and it's not clear exactly what the content will be, or what his views are in relation to to the site. And in any case, he is entitled to his beliefs without being labelled as suffering "paranoid delusions".
Also, I don't think his personal beliefs (whatever they might be) are in any way relevant to the current discussion. And it's just as off topic for you to bash his beliefs as it would be for him to promote them. (Whatever they might happen to be.)
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: David Jetson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:47 am | | A couple of points that came to me reading through the posts since my last one on this thread:
I think it likely that Jack was suffering from several "problems" at the same time. For instance, a paranoid schizophrenic catches syphilis in the exact same way a perfectly sane one does. In other words, if Cohen was the Ripper, his abberations may not have been directly caused by syphilis.
It's possible that it was the shock of being diagnosed with syphilis that was the "trigger event" that set him off into slaughtering whores, for instance. Syphilis was incurable then, though it was treatable to some extent. In some ways, syphilis was the AIDS of 1888, and being diagnosed would be a big blow to anyone.
I don't think anybody claims to understand exactly how mental illnesses work. Everybody is an exception to the mythical norm anyway. The particular set of issues that Jack suffered from were what led him to do what he did. Ripping people is abberrant behavior, and obviously harmful. I believe that a person who would do what Jack did is indisputably insane.
However, as I tried to say in an earlier post: "legally insane" is a whole different concept to being mentally ill. I don't think Jack was legally insane. I do think he had at least one mental illness, and probably a combination of several.
As I also said, I believe that whatever was wrong with him, it wasn't obvious enough to stop him from passing as sane, at least most of the time.
But anyone who says that the person who did what was done to those women was not mentally ill is crazy. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:54 am | | Rich,
Please read my post again.
First, I said that I based my comments on the assumption that the Ripper was a sexual serial killer.
Second, I was trying to make a distinction between the medico-legal definitions of insanity, the common usage of the word, and how they are confused. Greg, Julie and David all think that the ripper was "indisputably insane", or suffered from a degenerative mental illness - their evidence being "just look at what he did!". I disagree, for the reasons I posted above. "Normal", "abnormal", "insane", and words like that are all completely relative. And being "abnormal" doesn't indicate mental illness. I consider vegetarians, radical religious nuts, fans of the New York Yankees, and people who like to eat fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches to be "abnormal" because those are not behaviors that I attribute to me and my friends, whom I consider "normal". Does that make them insane? Obviously not. Get it?
Under that theory, anyone with deviant or unusual sexual proclivities could be considered "insane". Does that mean that homosexuals, transvestites or fetishers are insane? Of course not.
To another serial killer, the Ripper's killings were completely "normal". In fact, he was fairly tame compared to people like Ed Gein, Dahmer and Wayne Williams. It's all a question of perspective.
Fourth, could you please point out to me which authors and psychologists and in what literature they make the claim that the Ripper was suffering from mental illness,, and what evidence they use to support their statements? I don't recall reading any of that, and as far as I know, none of those experts had access to the Ripper himself to verify their diagnosies, so their informed opinion is no better or worse than my own. They may be more credible than I am, but they don't "know" any more than I do about the Ripper's actual mental state.
Recall, none of these eminent psychologists and profilers thought the Beltway Sniper was two black guys, one of whom was a juvenile. They make mistakes, too.
Fifth, my comments are based on my education, which included courses on abnormal psychology, criminology and psychology of crime and violence, my first hand experience with my brother's mental illness, and my extensive reading on the subjects of profiling, abnormal psychology, and serial killers in general. So while I don't have a degree in psychology, I do have enough knowledge to make a reasonable argument.
B |
Author: Gregory Boston
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:02 am | | | ouch. I'm hurt, Dan. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:06 am | | Dan,
Greg's a cop - he can't be paranoid because he wouldn't have passed the psychological examinations or background check.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:21 am | | Hi John,
With regard to your last post, we are in full agreement. Thanks for the remarks.
Richard |
Author: David Jetson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:32 am | | There is a concensus that certain behaviors are crazy - and I'm obviously not talking in a clinical sense, more in the sense that there is general agreement that certain forms of behavior, like murdering strangers, is just something that normal people don't do.
Saying that Jack was normal when compared to other serial killers is a fine example of a selective arguement. Me and David Radka are normal compared to everyone who isn't called "David" - so what? If your standard of normality is Ed Gein, then Jack the Ripper looks tame... but the important fact is that both Ed and our Jack are, compared to everyone but a microscopic fraction of the world's population, completely batsh!t.
I believe it's pretty much universally agreed that some behaviors are clearly abnormal, and that saying Jack was not mentally ill is like saying he was only expressing himself, and his chosen form of expression was murder.
There are standards of behavior that everybody knows and follows, which is why it's possible to walk to the shops every day and not have to fear that every person you see is going to attack you. There are many shades and aspects of behavior, certainly, but murdering strangers is never going to be considered normal by anyone, even another serial killer.
A murderer might feel that he's justified in killing prostitutes, or women in general, because of percieved wrongs committed by them, but he's never going to think of it as normal behavior. It isn't. And you'd have to be way more delusional than Jack to think that it was.
Evidence shows that Jack passed for normal, which a gibbering lunatic will not. So Jack was functional enough to understand that what he was doing was abnormal, and to hide it.
Just because some serial killers don't conveniently fit the particular patterns for recognised mental illnesses doesn't mean they're sane, it means they're crazy in a way that we haven't understood or described clinically. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:44 am | | Hi Brian,
You asked me to point out what psychologists and profilers have stated that Jack the Ripper suffered mental illness. Let me point to you my previous post of January 9th in which I cite 3 profilers - Dr Ressler, John Douglas, David Canter.
If you want to know why they feel the way they do, I suggest you read them.
Again, I am aware of no profiler, psychologist, or major author on the case who has in writing endorsed the view that the killer did not suffer from mental illness.
All of the testimony of the experts who have analyzed this case, that I am aware of, points to the contrary.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:47 am | | John,
I don't care if you find the characterization appropriate or not. The person is involved in a site linking many normal people to supposed demon-worship and promotes a book that prints outright lies. That makes him worse than Stephen Knight's anti-Mason crusade.
And I think that's very relevant to this particular thread, because the Satanic panic crowd has totally distorted psychology to try to support their witch hunts of innocent people. Trusting one of these nuts to make comments about psychology (or the occult, for that matter) is like trusting a white supremacist's opinion on racial harmony.
Brian,
Cops can't be paranoid? 
He's seeing devil-worshippers among people who listen to music on the radio, play videogames, and have a different religious background. That's a textbook example of fully developed paranoid delusions.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:53 am | | Hi Greg,
Do not feel insulted by some self-proclaimed psychiatric expert on the internet who has proclaimed that all the experts who say Jack the Ripper suffered mental illness are all ignoring the evidence, made the remarkable comment that often professional torturers are well-respected and well-liked, and now claims that based on his looking at a website can diagnose you as "suffering paranoid delusions of the world yourself."
It is the tactic of a few angry people here who, when their positions appear increasingly unreasonable, resort to personal attack and insult.
Your opinion is just that - your opinion. I hope that you are not discouraged from posting by someone who appears to want to insult and intimidate those who disagree with them.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:58 am | | Rich,
Again, I'll ask for the statements of those profilers, and in what books you find the statements. I have read all of John Douglas' works, and I do not recall those statements. I have not read Richard Ressler's "paperbacks", just his scholarly works, and I have not read David Canter's either. Can you give me the titles of Ressler and Canter's books so I can get them?
And again, you state "Again, I am aware of no profiler, psychologist, or major author on the case who has in writing endorsed the view that the killer did not suffer from mental illness."
Can you please point out which of these profilers, psychologists, or major authors on the case who have in writing endorsed the view that the killer did suffer from mental illness, and which books I can find the quotes?
I am really quite interested to read these accounts, because they could - if they exist - fundamentally change my perception of the case. Your assistance with this is greatly appreciated.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:00 am | | David,
Saying that someone who is a serial killer has to be crazy ignores the possibility that they're just plain evil. Tossing around the mentally ill label in this instance is meaningless, as it's a very sloppy use of the term. Psychopathy is considered a mental illness, but it's not at all of the same nature as others.
You can't just say he must have been crazy and then assume he had a very specific class of illness (ones where mental functioning breaks down) without any proof just because you said he was crazy. That's a circular argument.
It's like saying trees are bright purple because the tree obviously has a color, and then, when someone points out that trees aren't purple, complaining that saying trees are colorless is obviously wrong, and thus trees really are purple.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:00 am | | Dan,
Okay...maybe "can't be paranoid" is too strong a statement. Perhaps I should have said "I hope that they can't be paranoid, or that they would've not passed their background checks". 
In any event, Greg's posts haven't exhibited anything that I would call paranoia.
And if you judged me by some of the websites I check out daily, I'd be in the looney bin too.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:08 am | | Brian,
Maybe he became an anti-Satanist crusader *after* taking the tests to become a cop?
One would hope there's a reasonable explanation anyway.
Dan 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:18 am | | Brian,
I do not want to repeat my post - if you look at my post on January 9 at 10:21pm you will see that I cite two quotes from two different books by Ressler. I also quote Douglas and Canter from Sugden's book (as you know, Sugden's book is well footnoted and you can easily find the source documents).
I could provide more.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:51 am | | Rich,
Please do.
Here's what we've got that you quoted:
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")"
Okay, I think that there is a difference between "deranged" and "insane", or "suffering from a mental illness". Maybe this is too subtle a reading of this quote though. Oh, and Dan - here's a profiler who agrees with me on the disorganized issue.
"Jack's mental illness would have played a big part on the murder and mutilation of his victims." ("Whoever Fights the Monster")
The actual title of the book is "Whoever Fights Monsters". I've seen the book but not read it. And again, I don't know if Dr. Ressler is meaning "mental illness" in a clincal or popular culture defintion. This book wasn't a research book.
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've read all of Douglas's works, most of which weren't published, such as "The Anatomy of Motive" or "Causes That Haunt Us" (these both specifically talk about the Ripper crimes) when Sugden's book came out. I'll review my copies to see if he mentions that Jack had a mental illness, but I do know that Douglas personally feels that even though many of the serial killers he interviews are considered "sane", he thinks they are all "insane". He's written as much. But this is not a psychologist's perspective.
And a "psychological disturbance" does not mean a "mental illness". There's a slight, but important, difference. You can be psychologically disturbed without being ill.
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.
I agree.
If you could please name and quote the major authors on this case, and the psychologists who have claimed Jack had a mental illness, and the books they wrote them in, I'd appreciate it. So far, you quotes have just been from profilers.
Thanks Rich!
B |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:51 am | | Hey Brian,
Two snippets from Douglas' "The Cases That Haunt Us" regarding JtR:
"(this type of offender's) motivations and fantasies are so aberrant that they would interfere with his routine functioning"
"high degree of psychopathology exhibited at the scenes"
My personal opinion, and of course it's simply that, my opinion, is that JtR would not come across as a deranged, drooling lunatic, but if one were to spend any degree of time with him it'd become apparent that the guy was "not right".
Sir Robert |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:17 am | | Sir Bob,
I agree with you, and with Douglas' statements there. I do recall reading those. But I didn't read "mental illness" when I read them, either.
And Douglas's statement also doesn't jibe with the circumstantial evidence that Jack had a steady job. Steady work in Whitechapel was rare, and anything that would "interfere with his routine functioning" would probably cause him to lose his job.
There is no question that Jacky's motivations and fantasies are aberrant. But they don't necessarily point to a diagnosis of mental illness.
And, as Dan pointed out before, psychopathology doesn't mean mental disease.
In general though, I agree with your opinion. Here's a personal example. My brother doesn't come across as a deranged, drooling lunatic, but if you spend enough time with him, you'd figure out that he "wasn't right". Hell, just looking at him - you've all seen my photo. Now PCITURE someone who looks like me, but has a long purple mohawk, a goatee down to his chest, multiple piercings and wears all black most of the time. That's my bro. Now, his dress and appearance alone don't make him crazy, but I don't think it's "normal", either.
B |
Author: David Jetson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:27 am | | I'm not sure that I accept "evil" as being something inherent, that someone is "just plain evil." I don't think that people are born bad. I'm not saying that there aren't people who choose to be evil, obviously there are, but I think that it doesn't just come out of thin air. People are very complex, and saying someone is just plain evil seems to me on a par with saying they're possessed by demons.
I would describe someone who chooses to do things which are obviously evil is mentally ill.
We're really talking about the nature of sanity here, which is probably off topic.
I think mental illness, in its myriad forms, is pretty common. And most people who suffer from mental illnesses are completely harmless.
When we are talking about human behavior, most of it IS mental. Very little that we do is pure instinct. To do the crimes Jack did, one must first imagine doing them. Now I'm sure we could all imagine strangling someone and cutting their throat, but most of us are actually pretty placid, and would never seriously consider doing it, even to people who we feel really deserve it. Let alone complete strangers.
You're saying that someone who decides to act out these thoughts or impulses is evil. I say they're mentally ill. I think we're using different terms for the same thing.
Humans are basically social creatures, and despite all the death and violence some of us have caused, I think that it's a basic human trait to be sociable. We like our friends, our social groups, families, etc.
Violence is actually quite rare. You can live in a big city, see thousands of people every day, and never see an act of random violence in your whole life. Chances are you'll see a few, but they are actually a rarity.
Despite the violence on TV every day, actual real violence, happening right in front of you, is rare and shocking to most people. Violent people are the exception, not the norm.
Most of us don't go around hitting people with clubs. Not because we're frightened of the consequences, but because we're just not inclined that way.
So, extremely violent behavior, murderous behavior, is rare enough in most societies to be considered highly unusual. I'm not saying that anyone who breaks the taboos of society is mentally ill, but there are certain areas of behavior that, across all societies and cultures, are considered to be evil. The people who break those particular rules, like the one about not being a serial killer, are alienated enough from normal human behavior to be considered ill.
The taboo against murder is not cultural, it's basic behavior, for most animals as well as humans. There are exceptions: in a few species males will fight to the death for the favours of the harem. But most don't. And the idea of killing a female for fun is just plain alien to animals, it doesn't happen. Not among animals in the wild. And generally, an animal will not kill another animal of its own species for food, either.
So, we can clearly say that as a mammal, let alone a human, the serial killer is obviously broken. It isn't working right. In biologial terms, you could say that it is behaving in a counter-survival way. I think evil is a symptom of sickness rather than some kind of entity that just floats around like a ghost. Evil doesn't "just happen." Bad luck, like being the victim of evil, can "just happen." But evil is human behavior, very bad anti-social behavior. And anti-social behavior is caused by being broken. Being a disfunctional person. Which means being ill. Choosing to kill is evil, but nobody chooses to be ill, and most mentally ill people don't choose to kill. However, the people who do choose to kill, especially in the serial-killer way we're discussing here, are not behaving like normal humans. They're behaving like broken humans. Being a serial killer isn't like being left-handed or homosexual, which are just basic variations of the norm, they're outside the norm in a very specific way.
I don't think it's an illness that can be cured, certainly not with the tools we have now, let alone 1888, so I have no problem with imprisoning or even executing serial killers. I'm not saying "Jack was sick, so we should forgive him his behavior" by any means. I'm saying that it is illogical to deny that Jack was mentally ill. Legally sane, but socially a nutcase who should be stopped by whatever means it takes. |
Author: David Jetson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:32 am | | | I'd add that having a purple mohawk and multiple piercings is another example of being a variation from the norm, and that being a serial killer is so far outside the norm that it is a whole other issue that shouldn't be compared. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:37 am | | Hi Brian,
First off, I am not saying that Jack the Ripper was mentally ill. All I have said, from the very beginning, is that many profilers, psychologists, and researchers have stated their belief he was mental ill.
To my knowledge, not one profiler, psychologist, or esteemed researcher of the case has stated that Jack the Ripper was not mentally ill.
I have provided you quotes and sources. I could do more but I don't think thats an effective use of my time when you dismiss Ressler's categorical assertion the Ripper suffered "mental illness" by suggesting he doesn't really mean what he says.
Again, what I have stated is that I have seen profilers, psychologists, and criminal historians assert that Jack the Ripper suffered from mental illness. I have provided some sources.
I understand that you took some courses in college, have some personal family history with mental illness, and have read books on the subject. While I respect that experience, I do not believe it qualifies you to make evaluate the mental health of a serial killer.
Are you aware of any profiler or psychologist who has written that Jack the Ripper was not mentally ill?
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 12:00 pm | | | Simple logic. The latent stage of syphilis has no symptoms. Kaminsky would not have been in the infirmary diagnosed with syphilis if he was in the latent stage. This is an unreasonable suggestion. That Kaminsky's symptoms went away after six weeks indicates that he was in an earlier stage of the disease; that a raving lunatic named Cohen showed up in the East End nine months later, neither suggests a diagnosis of tertiary syphilis, nor does it suggest that Cohen was the syphilitic man 'cured' in the workhouse in the Spring. But to be fair to Martin Fido, I don't really believe that he anywhere claims that Cohen/Kaminsky was suffering from teritary syphilis, only that his disease suggests an association with East End prostitutes. The tertiary syphilis possibility seems to be Mr. Radka's contribution to the case. |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 12:23 pm | | May I butt in here for a second, and ask several rhetorical questions? BELIEVE ME, I am NOT trying to get into this argument....I think you guys are arguing about varieties of apples, rather than apples and oranges...so here goes. Tell me to piss off at any time, OK?
If someone drills holes in someone's head in an attempt to control that person, and make him a "sex slave", would the driller be crazy?
If this same person kept heads in a refrigerator, and body parts in a closet, is that person crazy?
If an entire nation endorses the extinction of a group of people, BY ANY MEANS AT HAND, would that nation be crazy?
If someone enjoys getting knee deep in gore, digging around in entrails, removing bits, and then keeping them in bottles as souvenirs, is that person crazy?
If, under the M'Naughton definition of "legally insane", a person has a job, a wife, kiddies, goes down the pub on Friday night, attacks women with hammers and screwdrivers, considers himself a "street cleaner" who speaks to God, HIDES BODIES in an attempt to evade detection, is that person crazy?
Is ANYONE who kills, then hides the body and attempts to evade capture crazy?
WHAT IS NORMAL?
WHAT IS CRAZY?
There are those who would submit that anyone who spends more than a nanosecond a day thinking about serial killers is crazy as a fruit bat.
There are those who think Ripperologists are crazy.
There are those who think that anyone who does not speak daily to Allah is crazy, immoral and worthy of extinction.
There are those who think gays are crazy.
There is a large number of people who think that anyone who kills, for whatever reason and in ANY manner, are crazy.
Does it matter a rat's ass if a killer is syphilitic crazy, mentally unstable, bipolar, schizophrenic, brain damaged, a religious spook, or just plain evil?
Food for thought, ONLY. PLEASE do not yell at me, or get all over me for misspeaking. I have these questions, and thought I would ask....I KNOW what I think.......do you?
Cheers to all,
J |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:01 pm | | RJ,
"The tertiary syphilis possibility seems to be Mr. Radka's contribution to the case."
Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that Fido doesn't hold that Cohen necessarily had to be syphillitic, and no in the sense that he says Cohen was Kaminisky, and Kaminsky was diagnosed syphillitic. You have to accept the case evidence as case evidence. I am willing to accept both of the following propositions: (1) Kaminsky was syphillitic, and (2) Kaminsky/Cohen could have killed the prostitutes for reasons other than syphillis. I am not saying that syphillis necessarily caused the murders, but I am saying that we must leave final judgement on the matter open, pending evidence.
Does this make sense to you? How can I better word it?
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:01 pm | | Hi Judith,
Your questions and contributions are valid.
The nature of the debate was about the suspect David Cohen. Mr. Cohen was placed in an asylum. Some believe that his alleged mental illness is one factor in favor of considering him a viable Ripper candidate.
The mental state of the killer has not been established, though. Some researchers have come to the conclusion that the murderer was mentally ill. Others here have postulated that there is no evidence the killer was mentally ill.
I am not an expert about mental illness - and I don't think anyone else is here. I do know that profilers, psychologists, and authors with more knowledge about these things than I have come to the conclusion the killer was mentally ill.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:09 pm | | Rich,
I am only asking you to provide for me the evidence of your statements.
You have stated that you are unaware of any profilers, psychologists, and serious authors ever saying that the Ripper did not have a mental illness.
You have provided us with quotes from one direct source (Ressler) and two hearsay sources (Sugden referencing Douglas). I did not dismiss Ressler's comment about "mental illness". I said I didn't understand how he defined it in that situation. If he indeed meant that the Ripper suffered from a mental disease, then you have proven that point. In adition, both of these individuals are profilers. What about the psychologists and serious authors?
Please provide us with the evidence from "psychologists and serious authors" that you claim to have. You offered to do this in a previous response. I am asking you to please do what you offered to do.
If you have neither the time, nor the inclinaton to do so, please - in the future - do not offer to do something you have no inclination to do.
Personally, I think it is unfair of you to demand evidence of others statements and refuse to provide it when demanded of you.
B |
|
|
|
|
