|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 13 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
David Cohen:
Archive through 13 January 2003
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:14 pm |        | David,
I agree with the vast majority of your statements, but I just want to make something clear.
If it can be determined that the Ripper had a diagnosable mental illness, this will help us in narrowing down the lists of suspects. This means a medico-legal form of psychosis or disease that is diagnosed in the DSM-IV Revised.
From a strictly societal point of view, the Ripper was clearly disturbed. But knowing this does not help us in identifying him.
David Cohen - if he can be proven to have had a legitimate mental or physical illness - becomes less likely a suspect in my mind, because he would not have had the ability to lead a normal life, as the circumstantial evidence we have in this case indicates.
I hope that clears this debate up a little. And that was a great list of questions, Judith!
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:27 pm | | Brian,
I said I could provide more sources - not that I would.
You say that when Ressler says Jack the Ripper suffered mental illness, I have proven my point if he means the killer had a mental disease.
I have already proven my point. I never said that any authority said that the killer suffered from mental "disease." I said a Ressler claimed the killer suffered from mental illness and provided the citation.
Sugden is a serious author - he cited Douglas and Canter in suggesting the killer suffered from mental illness.
This is not "hearsay" - please read Sugden and review his footnotes.
I am not going to go through all my books and find more quotes for you - I have provided three independent experts.
I have said that no profiler or psychologist I am aware of has written that Jack the Ripper did not suffer from mental illness.
Rich |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:41 pm | | Dear Brian and Rich.....thanks! I did understand what you were discussing; it's just that I really do think the point is moot. The main reason I feel that way is that, in 1888, the "diagnosable" part was fragile, at best. Consider this: in 1938, my great aunt was institutionalised for what was then called "melancholia" and her sister (my grandmother) always said she had died of that! Today, she would be called "depressed" and given a Prozac or two. Mental health diagnoses and treatments have varied wildly over the years, but I think that to be diagnosed "insane" in 1888, the symptoms presented would have been pretty obvious. The DSM-IV of 2003 bears no recognisable relation to what was called insanity in 1888. Alternatively, many people with dreadful mental problems do not present as drooling, dripping-fanged monsters...thus my questions. It is entirely possible that our Jack may have been crazy as a s**t house mouse, but did not appear so to neighbors, employers, etc. Therefore, he SHOULD have been locked up, but gave no outward appearance of requiring anything more than a pint down the pub after a bad day.
Just a clarification; now feel free to get on with it....response isn't required. I just never could resist putting in a tuppence worth!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:48 pm | | Rich,
You've said: "I have said that no profiler or psychologist I am aware of has written that Jack the Ripper did not suffer from mental illness."
I apologize for arguing with you. I cannot prove that you have read any psychologists, or serious authors on this case, so I - of course - cannot ask you to prove what you do not know.
So, let me see if I understand your point here before I end my contribution to this portion of the thread:
If I were to state that "No major author on this case that I am aware of has ever written a post claiming that Brian Schoeneman is a smart, intelligent, well read individual." that means that these "major authors" think that I am NOT a smart, intelligent, well read individual?
I won't insult your intelligence by defining hearsay. Perhaps "second hand source" would have been a better choice of phrase.
If you are not going to go through all of your books and find more quotes, please do not ask that others provide you with such research and then insinuate that they "don't have it" because they refuse to do so, like you did with Ally, myself and Dan on another thread.
That, in my opinion, is a mean, vicious and cruel act of a bully. No one likes people insinuating that they are liars.
B
PS, Ally - you may want to move these posts to the Whine and Cheese thread, as they don't have much to do with David Cohen. |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:05 pm | | Hi Rich,
You are right, I agree. I have my opinion based on
what I read into Jack the ripper and others have their opinion. It certainly does not prove that they are correct any more than it proves that we are incorrect. I don't need to have anyone tell me how to make a watch when all I asked for was the time. Jack could very well have been bi-polar, or rapid manic depressive. Bi polar people are quite capable of functioning on a normal basis. However, there are different phases of these illnesses. Some bi polar persons can be very violent while others are not, and so on and so on. I firmly believe in my own theory and opinions, whether or not others disagree is their perogative, as it is mine to not agree with them.
regards julie |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:18 pm | | Greg, Julie and David,
I hope that my comments to Rich haven't made you think I don't appreciate your contributions to this thread. Everything you've said has been thoughtful and helpful.
While I don't always agree, I make no mistake about knowing my place - I'm a well-read amateur, who knows no more than anyone else. And probably less.  If I've ever made you feel like your opinion was not worthy, I'm sorry.
B |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:40 pm | | Brian
With all due respect to your education, experience and so on, you are losing sight of the fact that you are not the only one (aside from Dan of course)who has this same expertise or at least similar.
Experts disagree on a regular basis, regardless of having the same or similar backgrounds and hands on experience.I was absolutely convinced that the Diary was genuine, I was so excited to find out who the ripper was, after all these years of studying him and similar criminals, untill Mike Barrett said he forged the diary. Then he recanted this confession, so I was a bit skeptical about the diary. Had the experts agreed that the diary was legit, I would have had no question in my mind, except to study the how of it all. The doctors who examined the bodies could not agree totally when it came to the Killer having skills becoming surgeons, butchers etc. So
you see Brian just because you think Jack's elevator went all the way to the top floor, does not make you necessarily right.
This is an automatic email DO Not Reply
julie |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:48 pm | | I have been asked to clarify where does religion fall under the umbrella of personal attacks.
Casebook policy is that you cannot attack a person based on any physical or biologically assigned characteristic. Any insult even in a generality is a total and complete no-no.
Religion is a personal choice and if you can't defend your choices in life, you shouldn't be allowed to make them.
That being said, specific attacks against a person for their religion are prohibited but general negative comments about a particular religion are not.
Acceptable ( though untrue): Wiccans are all dithering airheads who worship satan.
Unacceptable: You're a wiccan? YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!! God will punish you for your evil.
If a person is offended by your characterization of their religion, they are welcome to duke it out with you. Neither one of you is allowed to use the other's religion as a basis for anything being wrong with the individual person.
I hope this clarifies.
Ally |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:59 pm | | Julie,
I had no intention of making you think I was "right". I sincerely apologize, as that was not my point.
I disagree with you. But that definitely doesn't mean that I think I'm any more "right" than you are, or Greg, or David. If that was how I came across, please know that it wasn't intentional.
I included my background to give others some idea of what I based my opinions on, not because I think it gives me any greater insight into the case than them.
Again, I'm sorry.
B |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 03:15 pm | | Dan & Brian
Judging by the feedback with respect to my position that Jack was a few sandwiches short of a picnic, I now REST MY CASE.
julie |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 03:37 pm | | Brian
Apology accepted.
julie |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 03:43 pm | | Hi Brian,
Let's simplify.
I cited three experts whose professions are the analysis of serial killers who stated their opinion that Jack the Ripper suffered from some form of mental illness. I rendered both quotations and sources.
Secondarily, I said I am unaware of any profiler, psychologist, or major author on the case who contradicts that view and has written that they believe Jack the Ripper suffered no mental illness.
You wrote:
"If I were to state that "No major author on this case that I am aware of has ever written a post claiming that Brian Schoeneman is a smart, intelligent, well read individual." that means that these "major authors" think that I am NOT a smart, intelligent, well read individual?"
No, that does not mean that. It means that no author has spoken on your intelligence. But that is not what I said regarding the position of major authors on the case. The correct analogy would be this:
"I have quoted and cited three major authors on the case that state that Brian is not smart. I am aware of no major authors on the case who say he is smart."
That quotation is a logical construction. I am not saying that there are no authors on the case that feel the way you do - I am simply saying I am unaware of any. I am saying that every author I have seen address the subject comes to the opposite conclusion that you do.
I have even stated, repeatedly, that I have no idea whether Jack the Ripper is mentally ill.
I have made no accusation that you are a liar. I said that you have not cited one profiler or psychologist who concurs with your opinion of Jack the Ripper's mental state.
That does not mean your opinion is wrong - or even that no such author exists.
It simply means I have cited experts who support the opposite conclusion you have drawn and you have not cited any that support your view of Jack the Ripper's mental health.
Rich |
Author: Gregory Boston
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 05:15 pm | | Wiccans are actually fascinating people, I know several.
FYI, I'm not a witch hunter or anything like that.
I do study alternative religions and I do teach a class on the occult, cults, and deviant behavior to police departments all over the world. We've taught at London's Scotland Yard this past year because they were having trouble solving a ritualistic crime in which a young boys head was cut off.
Why do police need to be trained in this? Because more often than not a person is raised to appreciate one or two belief systems. A police officer must be able to deal with a satanist in a fair and impartial manner just like he does with his fellow catholic, or what have you.
Just wanted to clarify that. I'm not a bible thumper, a quack, or a witch hunter. |
Author: Ally
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 06:51 pm | | Well gee Gregory,
Then what fun are you ?
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 07:05 pm | | Hi Brian,
As you know, the topic of this thread is David Cohen. It has been suggested that since both David Cohen and Jack the Ripper suffered mental illness, that is one factor in favor of Cohen as a viable suspect.
Both you and Dan wrote that there is no evidence to suggest Jack the Ripper suffered from mental illness.
As you know, I have made the assertion that FBI profilers Robert Ressler and John Douglas both have concluded the Jack the Ripper suffered from mental illness. I quoted Ressler as saying so and also cited John Douglas as saying the killer suffered from a "psychological disturbance."
You said that a psychological disturbance is different from a mental illness. Furthermore, you stated that you have read everything Douglas has written on the issue and cannot remember him stating the killer suffered from mental illness.
David Cohen was institutionalized for mental illness in 1889.
In "The Cases That Haunt Us," written by John Douglas in 2000, he concludes his chapter on Jack the Ripper by writing:
"I'm now prepared to say that Jack the Ripper was either the man known to the police as David Cohen or someone very much like him."
I think the only way one could argue that John Douglas does not believe Jack the Ripper was mentally ill is to claim that David Cohen was misdiagnosed for mental illness.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:57 pm | | "David Cohen - if he can be proven to have had a legitimate mental or physical illness
- becomes less likely a suspect in my mind, because he would not have had the
ability to lead a normal life, as the circumstantial evidence we have in this case
indicates. "
Hey Brian,
There is one possibility with all of the "Insane Polish Jews", or for any of the suspects for that matter....It's possible that you had the case where the murderer was an extremely bright and clever individual, but his mental illnesses kept him from working at anything other than a menial job or that of a laborer. In essence, he is incapacitated but you'd not know it unless you spent a lot of time interacting with him. And of course he'd avoid that like the plague.
Sir Robert |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:25 pm | | Hi Robert,
You are correct. Many people who suffer from severe mental illnesses are able to be quite successful, if not normal, lives.
Emmy award winning journalist Mike Wallace suffers from clinical depression. He wrote a book about his experiences.
I suppose anyone who is suffering from mental illness is not living a normal life. I am not sure we know what kind of life Jack the Ripper lived.
Thanks again for your measured and sensible posts.
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:52 pm | | Dear David--One word. NO, not even a word, a barbaric yawp. Argggggggh. The whole K-something-ski theory only works if Cohen was indentified as Kaminsky! The fact that he is called 'David Cohen' [ie., the Jewish equivalent of 'John Doe'] suggest that he wasn't ever identified. He had no family. He was incoherent. So what are we left with? A nameless lunatic with no known connection to the case. I might as well be juggling imaginary bean-bags. The whole Anderson-thing is a series of weak links that doesn't add up to a chain. There was no opportunity for a name confusion, because Cohen was Cohen.
But hell, I topple my king. I retire. If you want a syphilitic Polish Jew, you can have him. But then, I don't really believe you think he is the culprit anymore than I do. So long, RP |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:29 pm | | "The whole Anderson-thing is a series of weak links that doesn't add up to a chain."
That's where you're wrong, RP. And where everyone has been wrong for 114 years.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:48 pm | | Rich,
You are right. I stand corrected.
Do you have any more evidence for any of the other authors? Psychologists or anything else? I'd like to know. Or are you only willing to post evidence that points out that I missed a Douglas book? Anything else?
Sir Robert,
That's a good point. Although I'm not sure that it would be possible for him to avoid all contact with people in Whitechapel at the time. The overcrowding would make it almost impossible for him to live by himself if he was only working at menial labor type jobs.
It seems like everytime you find something that makes sense in this case, something else - or someone else - pops up to contradict it.
Oh well, the woes of my chosen hobby.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:45 pm | | Hi Brian,
Thank you for your remarks.
The following profilers, psychologists, and authors have published their suspicions that Jack the Ripper suffered from some form of mental illness:
Profilers:
Robert Ressler (sources: "I Lived In The Monster and "Whoever Fights With the Monster")
John Douglas ("The Cases That Haunt Us" and in William G. Eckert's "The Ripper Project" in the "American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology")
Psychologists:
Dr. David Canter ("Criminal Shadows")
Dr. Sam Vaknim ("The Psychology of Mass Killers")
Authors:
Donald Rumbelow ("The Complete Jack the Ripper" - featuring a passage by Dr. Richard von Kraft-Ebbing)
Philip Sugden ("The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" - he cites Douglas and Canter in constructing his profile of the killer)
These are just some available sources. In my readings of the case, the murderer is frequently described as suffering from "pathological narcissism." There are those who even claim this is a treatable illness.
I don't know of any expert who claims that Jack the Ripper was not suffering from some form of mental illness. There may be someone out there - I simply have not found them.
I do not have a position on the killer's state of mind - these experts conceivably could be wrong. But based on my analysis of the available information, the consensus of profilers, psychologists, and crime experts who have reviewed the case is that Jack the Ripper was mentally ill.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Billy Markland
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 12:36 am | | Rich, while normally I get enjoyment out of watching you arguing over the number of angels dancing upon the head of a needle, you are in my opinion, getting somewhat tiresome.
The topic is JtR and subtopic is David Cohen. The niggling comments about the phraseology and utter exact meaning of what someone said is uncalled for.
Going back to the thread, someone said it very well, that whomever committed these crimes was sick. That is sick compared to our MODERN culture. On another thread, I posted the partial report of the commander of a detachment of American frontier soldiers who were massacred. The mutilations were performed by perfectly sane persons and within the bounds of their culture.
Your entire argument is postulated upon what MODERN psychologists, etc. state about JtR's mental state. That argument may be correct, but equally, it has the chance of being wrong.
I hate to bring up this hypothesis, but what if....he knew what he was doing and did it deliberately??? Old news???? Sorta thought so.
So Rich, you are a very intelligent, literate (I wish I was so good!), person. Why not find a theory, create one, or whatever; rather than arguing over nuances??
{--staying out of hibernation--}
Billy |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 01:12 am | | Hi Billy,
Thank you for the kind words.
You are right, this thread is about David Cohen. The subject of Jack the Ripper's mental illness that came up on this thread was not launched by me.
Some, mostly new posters, stated that they felt David Cohen was a good suspect because he was demonstrably mentally ill, as was Jack the Ripper.
Subsequently, a couple of posters stated that there was no evidence to support the contention that Jack the Ripper suffered from mental illness.
I stated and cited various sources of profilers, psychologists, and authors who have written that Jack the Ripper was mentally ill. I noted that I have never seen a profiler, psychologist, or major author on the case claim that the killer did not suffer from mental illness.
Someone echoed your scenario - about harrowing acts perpetrated by surgeons or the military show that violence does not necessarily indicate mental illness. I agreed with that construct entirely.
There is a difference, in my view, between someone who commits a violent act under proscribed codes of conduct to achieve a directed goal - versus one who engages in violence for the arousal of the event.
I was advocating for some of the new people who were called "delusional" and ignorant for holding a position that I felt had merit. That was clearly inappropriate and I do apologize for that.
As I have noted repeatedly, I do not have an opinion on whether or not Jack the Ripper was mentally ill - I honestly don't know.
But since to hold the position that Jack the Ripper was mentally ill is delusion, ignorant, or provocative, and in the interests of amity, I will declare my position in favor of the murderer's good mental health.
Therefore, Jack the Ripper was mentally stable and the sources quoted and mentioned remarking to the contrary are all wrong.
We now all agree.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Billy Markland
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 02:00 am | | Rich, as Ronald Regan said, "there you go again"
OK, after the sentence, "Thank you for the kind words", you seem to go off on a tangent.
If people are being criticized, etc. for calling Jack delusional, that is their opinion and they have to defend it.
I understand, and appreciate, that you have a well developed sense for protecting what you perceive as the underdog. But, others, just as you and I, have had to find our own way and argue our own positions based upon facts and logic.
Please understand, quibbling over semantics only wins points in debate societies. I have agreed with you re: AP's comments, but now, well, enough is enough.
Defend your position regarding the facts and theories of the case, and let the rest slide off!
That was my New Year's Resolution (after 2 weeks off following 6-7 day a week work from June 15 until I cut off the pager on 12/29).
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 03:58 am | | Whether Cohen suffered mental problems or not,he,as mental people today,cannot be dragged forward and be accused of crimes simply because of those mental problems.
There would have to be some physical association with the victims and crime scenes attributed to him,and in Cohens case this evidence is lacking.He cannot by name be placed at any of the murder spots,or in company of any of the victims.In fact there is no material evidence that he was even in the Whitechapel area when all the murders were committed.
He cannot be identified as having been the subject of an identification parade,and in fact an identification parade itself cannot be substansiated.
So to the person who started the thread,what other information do you have that will be convincing for Cohen to be the best prospect yet,and please do it from your own assessment of the available information,not the dubious opinions and writings of other so called experts. |
Author: Philip Rayner
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 05:09 am | | 'That's where you're wrong, RP. And where everyone has been wrong for 114 years.'
David
If your case is as good as you say,I for one can't wait. When do we see the fruits of your labour mate?
Phil |
Author: julienonperson
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:02 am | | Rich et al
Re Cohen's mental state being proven, examined and so on, I am optimistic that once the records of the asylums are completely open in 2030,we will get a better understanding of not just Cohen, but several others. Correct me if I am wrong, but in Tully's book on James Kelly , Tully states this time of 2030 when the records will be
opened. I assume that they are either partially if not totally sealed untill such time. This would also open up new avenues of what were the considerations when labeling a person a lunatic,etc. It may also open the door to suspects
we have not yet heard of. The records may actually tell us that a certain person was Jack the Ripper. There were several asylums, Jack could have been transferred from one to another, confusing the police as to his location.
I've thought about the above often,your comments would be appreciated. Ouchless comments only need reply.
regards julie |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:03 am | | Dear Mr Rayner,
What did the policeman say to the Rabbi?
"We have Moloch cornered!"
Rosey :-) |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 01:48 pm | | Rosey,
You don't know what I know. My fruits are big and ripe.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 01:54 pm | | Everyone,
I just got off the phone with one of my best friends, who happens to be a psychologist with a degree from Yale and...
...it looks like I may need to eat a bit of crow. Once I finish talking to her, I'll let you know what her layman's psychological view on the case is.
B |
Author: julienonperson
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 03:16 pm | | Sir Robert Anderson,
Would you be so kind sir to confirm for me, whether or not the date of 2030 as quoted by Mr. Tully is indeed the date that the asylum records will open.
If correct, do you think that Jack the Ripper will be exposed? That due to the obligation of confidentiality, the police were not allowed to give his name up? That only the highest in the land were privy to this information? That the guesses of well-intentioned, intelligent officers were just that, guesses?
Do you think that the terrified public were cheated by not being advised who Jack really was?
I think Jack will be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, which will finally clear the names of those who have be accused all these years, DO YOU?
julie |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 06:24 pm | | Dear David,
I know nothing.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 07:36 pm | | "That due to the obligation of confidentiality, the police were not allowed to give his name up? That only the highest in the land were privy to this information? That the guesses of
well-intentioned, intelligent officers were just that, guesses? "
Hi Julie,
I honestly believe the police never cracked this case, and that their strong suspicions were just that, suspicions. Don't forget that a tremendous amount of police files were destroyed or just subject to routine housecleaning, which makes it even harder to reconstruct what the police actually thought behind the scenes.
I don't believe in a conspiracy of silence or a desire to withhold sensitive information outside of the normal rules regarding the sealing of police or asylum files.
But then again, I "only thought I knew" .
Sir Robert |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:51 pm | | Hi Billy,
I do not have an opinion about Jack the Ripper's mental instability. All I recited were the facts about what the experts think.
However, some of the newbies who held the same position as these experts have been called "delusional" and ignorant.
So, since holding the view that Jack the Ripper might be mentally ill is so upsetting, and in order to preserve amity, I am declaring that Jack the Ripper was mentally stable.
I hope this satisfies those who were so upset about the contrary opinion.
Rich |
Author: Billy Markland
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 01:27 am | | Rich,
Anything I have to say is well said by the below:
Billy |
Author: David Jetson
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 06:38 am | | Since I last posted on this thread, I found a book in my local library that is very relevant to this discussion... here's a quote...
"When angered, legislators,like individuals, act impulsively. They make laws that fly in the face of common sense. Under such laws, murderers who are obviously stark raving mad are not legally insane. Everyone knows that a serial killer who eats his victim, even a teensy piece of his victim, is crazy.
Was Arthur Shawcross crazy when he murdered his victims and consumed their genitalia? Of course. He had to be. Insane? Not necessarily. Not according to some forensic psychiatrists."
Who wrote that? Dr Dorothy Otnow Lewis. Who is she? Yale educated psychiatrist. Professor at NYU. Author of a number of professional studies of violence, including a standard text. She spent over 30 years studying violent criminals, and interviewed hundreds of inmates on death row, including many serial killers, some of them quite infamous, like Ted Bundy and the above-mentioned Arthur Shawcross.
So, while I have no professional credentials, after I wrote what I wrote earlier, I find that someone who is an aknowledged leading authority in the field turns out to have a pretty similar opinion to me on whether serial killers are crazy or not.
The book, and I recommend it highly, is called Guilty by reason of insanity - which is why I noticed it in the library, when I was thinking about this thread. That's so appropriate, it's spooky.
The book doesn't mention Jack the Ripper, because Lewis only talks about cases she has personally worked on. Basically, the thrust of her arguement is that she's never met a serial killer who wasn't insane, by her definition. She's pretty big on the idea that these people should be studied, rather than executed, and she makes a very convincing arguement for it.
The book is about how she came to work with violent criminals - she started by working with young offenders at Juvenile Court, and treating young people who had committed terrible crimes led her to investigate what creates violent people.
Even though the Ripper crimes are not mentioned, what she says about violent people, and particularly killers, is very relevant to the study of the Ripper case.
I will warn, though, that some of the stories of the lives of murderers - and what made them murderers - involve some truly repulsive accounts of child abuse. It even managed to shock me, and I thought I'd heard and seen plenty. These stories are the most horrifying accounts of child abuse I've ever heard. So read the book, but don't say I didn't warn you. |
Author: Philip Rayner
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 06:42 am | | 'You don't know what I know. My fruits are big and ripe.'
They can cure these things now I understand!
Nice to see you on good form David.
Phil |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 11:57 pm | | Hi David,
I don't think any psychologist has argued that all serial killers are insane.
Some credible experts have postulated that Jack the Ripper was insane. I have no idea whether they are correct - I am not even quite sure why they come to the conclusions they have arrived at.
John Douglas has written that many serial killers are not insane. However, for some reason, he believes Jack the Ripper was.
Unless the acts themselves qualify someone as insane, its hard for me to understand how one could believe one way or another about the killer's insanity without knowing who he was and what his mental state was at the time of the killings.
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 12:34 am | | David,
The problem here is that anyone can prove anything they want if they change the definitions of the terms they use.
"Basically, the thrust of her arguement is that she's never met a serial killer who wasn't insane, by her definition."
Well, sure, if someone wants to make up their own definition that's different from everyone else's they can prove anything they want. If I change the definition of "painter" to include "anyone who ever killed anyone" than Jack the Ripper was a painter. Does that mean he really was a painter by the definitions of everyone else? Of course not.
In order to have a reasonable conversation, people need to know that the words they are using mean the same thing to all people. Changing "insane" to mean "crazy" instead of "legally not in control of their actions" doesn't help anyone.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 12:59 am | | Rich,
"its hard for me to understand how one could believe one way or another about the killer's insanity without knowing who he was and what his mental state was at the time of the killings."
Simple. People who are insane don't know the difference between right and wrong. Not knowing something is wrong means they don't try to escape, don't try to hide anything, and will admit doing it. This is completely opposite of what Jack did.
Thus the only way Jack could be considered insane is if you use your own personal definiton of what that word means. It's obvious that that's what you are doing, and we know Dr. Lewis (above) is using her own as well. Perhaps that's what the authors you cite are doing too... but then you keep switching terms indiscriminately so I don't know if the authors really used "insane," or just "mentally ill," or even "mentally disturbed" or something else entirely.
The original argument on this thread was the jack was obviously "degenerating mentally" -- this classification is a small subset of "mentally ill."
Citing a professional saying that Jack had "pathological narcissism" is not at all close to evidence of insanity or mental degeneration, and may not even be considered a mental illness depending upon what the person meant when he said it.
Further, the many people who say that Jack was a "psychopath" are *not* saying that Jack was "mentally degenerating" or "insane" either, as psychopaths almost never lose the ability to function in society and are capable of telling right from wrong. They just choose to do something they know is wrong but don't care. There is also debate over whether that diagnosis is an actual mental illness or just a technical label covering chronically immoral people.
So, please, if you are going to argue things please be careful in what terms you toss around, as the words all have different specific meanings.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
|
|
|
|
