|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 16, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Tumblety, Francis:
Archive through April 16, 1999
Author: Grey Hunter
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 02:42 pm |        | Dear Joseph,
Many thanks for the kind remarks regarding my book, and thank you for reading it.
I have been a collector of crime ephemera and books for many years and most of the dealers in this field know me. When Eric retired and closed down his shop at Richmond he decided to sell some old letters regarding 'Jack the Ripper' that he had, the remains of the crime collection of George R Sims. He offered them to the London antiquarian crime book dealer, and old friend of mine, Camille Wolff. She was not interested in the letters and put Eric in touch with me. The rest is in the book.
Yes, Colonel C.A. Dunham, as described in the book, is historically identified and was a New Jersey lawyer in 1888. His story is the result of the New York Press tracking him down and interviewing him in 1888.
The anatomical collection of Tumblety's, referred to, was in his Washington office in the 1860's. It is not known what happened to these items, or even whther he took them to New York or St Louis with him. There must still be some new information on the doctor still to be located in the U.S., and this forms a genuine area of prime source 'Ripper' research in the U.S.A. After all, he was a named police suspect for the murders.
Hope this is of help, and thank you again.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Cindy L.
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 08:06 pm | | Thought for Bob:
Do all serial killers really have to display violent tendencies. I have another thought. Maybe it was the rage he kept hidden from view that was surfacing whenever he killed and mutilated his victims. |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 11:37 pm | | Hello Mr. Evans,
Thank you for your timely response.
You wrote a very interesting piece of work, which introduced a whole new character to the play.
Francis Tumblety, is a piece of work.
Where he got the courage to pull off his various
charades,is probably the the same place he found the insanity to release his rage.
I was wondering, are you where going to continue to
investigate Mr. Tumbletys life?
Would any futher incite into his Fenian activities help connect him to the case?
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 06:03 am | | Hi Cindy,
Quite right. That is why I wrote on 17th Feb;
"Tumblety being, or not being violent doesn't mean all too much, that is only one part of the whole."
Reading Stewart's book gave me a much better insight into Tumbelty and his character than I had before. He was a fake, a charlatan, a colourful character who was not totally unaware of his own failings but chose to ignore them. He did indeed, as people of his genré tend to, suffer injustice and unfair treatment. His being in the main the cause of his own misfortune is just one of those human facts we all have to live to.
I have never been able to really get a feeling about Jack and his 'rage'. I don't believe that anyone in uncontrolled rage could chop up people more or less in public like he did and get away. I could better accept a cold anger, allowing him to still keep control. A frantic, wildly stabbing, ripping, raving, blind-for-rage Jack would have got caught.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 01:58 pm | | Hi Joseph,
I have mentioned before that I have been reading about and researching this subject for more than 33 years. I never had any intention of writing a book about it as I felt that a situation of 'overkill' existed in that area, I was especially disdainful in 1987/8, although a few good books came out then.
It was only my good fortune in buying the Littlechild letter, and so discovering a genuine 'new' suspect that made me research him further and put pen to paper as it were. I had already spent over one thousand pounds sterling, around $1,500 I guess, on obtaining hard copies of the Home Office and Police reports. I also spent a further 100 pounds on the City Police Reports and letters. The research was an expensive business. I also built up a collection of hundreds of relevant photographs and prints, as well as other ephemeral items.
From this you may realise that my interest in the subject extends beyond research into Tumblety and I have written a 190,000 word factual sourcebook on the murders (not yet published).
The main research on Tumblety, one of the few genuine suspects, will have to be done in the U.S.A. and I have one or two contacts over there who kindly send me material when they find it, such as Chris George. Despite having a 'favoured' suspect and written the book on Tumblety I try to remain totally objective and focused on the case.
I was a police officer for 28 years and so I have, perhaps, a different approach to many others, and find that Don Rumbelow thinks in a similar way to me. I do not rate the criminal profiling techniques as applied to these murders very highly, and most of that sort of thing in the book was the work of my co-author Paul Gainey. Obviously some of it is relevant, so I do not dismiss it totally out of hand, but I have been involved in a few real-life murder investigations and I have seen the worst sights you can imagine for real. It gives you a different perspective.
Tumblety's Fenian leanings may give further insight and be a worthwhile area of further research. We must not forget the quote in Douglas G. Browne's book The Rise of Scotland Yard about Macnaghten's thoughts on the identity of the killer - "A third head of the C.I.D., Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office." And Browne saw the files at Scotland Yard before much went missing.
Bob c, thank you too for reading the book.
Best to all,
Stewart |
Author: Cindy L.
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 10:37 pm | | Bob,
Sorry I overlooked your comment on the 17th. I'm relatively new to the message boards; although have been keeping an eye on the casebook for about a year. I find it really interesting, but I'm a little vague on some of the details. I'm counting on everyone to sort of bear with me and help me out if I screw somthing up.
Tumbelty just sort of "feels right" to me as the ripper, but as I research more, I might change my mind.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Cindy |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 12:01 pm | | Hi Stewart,
Good to hear from you again! I have read your book from front to back many times and got a lot of useful information. Please keep on with the good work and please let us know when you've published again.
Hi Cindy,
If I had a dollar (or even a DM) for every time I've missed something on the board, I'd be drunk as a Lord every day. I'm under pressure of time at the mo', but I'll be writing to you on this subject soon.
Best regards to all,
Bob |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 01:22 pm | | Hi Bob,
Thanks very much a compliment indeed.
Stewart |
Author: Reviewer
Monday, 29 March 1999 - 02:13 pm | | Readers may be interested to know that Dr. Francis J. Tumbletye is the 'master criminal' pitted against Sherlock Holmes in the new novel 'Sherlock Holmes and the Royal Flush,' by Barrie Roberts, London Constable, 1998, ISBN 0 094 79240 2, at £16.99. It is set in London in 1887, and involves Tumbletye in a plot to disrupt Queen Victoria's Jubilee celebrations. The 'Ripper' aspect is covered in the chapter annotations, it seems to be a good atmospheric read.
Copies are available from Rupert Books on, rupert_books@compuserve.com
However, apparently the publishers do only a limited run of these Holmes pastiches and it will soon become hard to find. |
Author: Michael FitzGerald
Monday, 12 April 1999 - 11:23 pm | | This letter is particularly addressed to Stewart Evans, whose book I finished reading at 4am without having closed it for more than 12 hours.
- In one of the post mortem reports, I believe from Dr. Bond after the Kelly murder, the statement that "all 5 murders were committed by the same hand" (or somesuch) is constructed as "by the one killer." In fact, I think Bond makes this very assertion in a later report on an 1889 killing. Semantically, "hands" are a metonymic symbol of agency and the phrase "committed by the same hand" is v. ambiguous. But I think in context Bond is limiting it to the question of left- or right-handedness. Its the only time in the book I can remember thinking that the evidence had been misconstrued, but you certainly make the point elsewhere that not only Bond, but the larger coronial, press and police authorities had "joined the dots" of the canonical five killings. And that this effect had reinforced the public perception of a series.
- Elsewhere on this website, I have noticed the similarity of Tumblety to the "second man" seen by Israel Schwartz before the Stride killing. Your book does not report the differing accounts of this witness, attributable to language difficulties, including the newspaper report that he had seen the second man carrying a knife. Disposing of the Stride murder seems a hurdle for theorists; those who view her as a Ripper victim have to account for the absence of mutilation; those like yourself who attribute the murder to another cause must overcome the entrenched perceptions that the former class of theorists have resorted to. Your task is made more difficult by Scwartz's assailant using an anti-semitic insult, combined with the discovery of anti-semitic graffiti at the site of the blood-stained apron. All this raises the following points in my mind, some problematic, others fanciful:
- If Tumblety is lodged at 22 Batty street, is it possible that he witnessed the assault on Stride by coincidence, as the "second man"? Schwartz's perception that he was followed from the scene by the second man may be delusional, typical of someone who believed "Lipski" to be an appellation as he was unfamiliar with its pejorative sense. The second man may merely have
wished to absent himself from the scene out of discomfort, and took the same immediate route by chance. The (unreliable) report of the second man carrying a knife is troubling - if he is uninvolved, why does he show it? If he is Tumblety (and the nearness to 22 Batty St raises the possibility), it must be shown that he was a smoker.
- Again, if the second man were Tumblety, what if he were known to the assailant? Collaboration reeks of conspiracy...
- If the graffiti were made by the Stride killer (though it was seen to have been long-standing), could the blood on the apron been Stride's, and the apron not torn from the Mitre Square victim?
- If Stride was an interrupted Ripper victim, do the means of death coincide? If Tumblety is the killer, could he not have witnessed the assault on Stride (as the second man) and "finished the job" once the assailant had left? The evidence that the first man was drunk when approaching the scene, given to the newspaper, makes him an unlikely cold-blooded killer (though it does not dispose of him as a hot-blooded killer).
- I also noted similarities in Tumblety's likeness and that of a Finsbury St lodger reported elsewhere on this website, a tall, eccentrically dressed, mustachioed Canadian. You are probably aware of this evidence, as it forms part of the Lodger myth which you trace to the real police and press interest in Batty St. If this Canadian were Tumblety, and it is unlikely, his arrival in April would have to be accounted for. It would fit nicely with your suspicion of multiple bolt holes in the area.
- On the discrepancies in age between Tumblety and many witnesses' report. The inhabitants of the East End lived their lives in squalid conditions. Malnutrition and alcoholism were rife. Their poverty was of the sort journalists usually describe as "abject". In such poverty, dismal health and early death were common. Disease claimed many in the area in their 30s and 40s, brought on by poor diet, lifestyle, and the hard labour of early industrialism. Contrasting the squalor and poverty of life under such conditions, the life of a rich American was one of Elysian ease. Tumblety does not seem to have done a hard day's work in his life, and is a practitioner of medicine, actively pursuing his own health, probably with herbals and a healthy diet. His interest in skin conditions shows he is a superficial man, keen on keeping the outside pristine, and is routinely described as handsome. In the East End, whose denizens were haunted by age before their time, such a man, though 55, might have appeared as young as one of the malnourished and impoverished locals of 40 or even 35. Especially if seen in darkness. I think this is a worthy point. The bearing of a rich man who has lead a healthhy life will not betray his age, but that of a poor, vicious and malnourished man will belie his actual youth.
- On this psychological profiling nonsense. It may be true of immature minds that they are "determined" by patterns of upbringing and environment, but this is not true of men of conscience and intelligence. To use the language of the existentialist philosophers, it would "bad faith" to deny that a free thinker cannot plot his own course deliberately, even to confound such "rational" explanation. It is small wonder that this plastic profiling art is the product of American thought. A truly existentialist murder would be better explained as concept-art than by psychology, which has no jurisdiction over such thought. Fortunately such transcendent thinkers are few, and the profilers will have their abused children and wretched souls. Leave the others to the detectives. To explain why Tumblety might have killed, in the face of the profilers, one might have to have recourse to the mind's innate ability to transcend pattern and predictability. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 02:38 am | | One of the most rewarding aspects of writing a book is to find that others gain pleasure from reading it. This is greatly enhanced when you hear that someone has read it for so long in one 'sitting.'
Regarding the 'profiling' report by Dr. Thomas Bond, dated November 10, 1888, (ref- HO 144/221/A49301C ff 220-223), I am able to add the following. It was written as a result of a letter dated October 25, 1888, from Robert Anderson to Dr. Bond. In this letter Anderson wrote -
"In dealing with the Whitechapel murders the difficulties of conducting the enquiry are largely increased by reason of our having no reliable opinion for our guidance a to the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the murderer or murderers.
I brought this matter before Sir C. Warren some time since and he has now authorised me to ask if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests and favour him with your opinion on the matter.
He feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases - and it is entirely in that capacity that the present case is referred to you - will make your opinion specially valuable." (ref- HO 144/221/A49301C ff 217-219).
From this it is plain that Bond was favoured as the most 'eminent' of the police surgeons available to comment on the case. In view of his non-involvement with the murders up until that time, his appearance may well have been somewhat resented by the other experienced medical men. A conflict of Bond's views with those of other police surgeons is, indeed, apparent. It seems clear that the police wished him to indicate which of the murders could be attributed to a common hand. This clash becomes most apparent in the case of the McKenzie murder of July 17, 1889, when Bond and Bagster Phillips openly disagreed with each other's conclusions. Phillips felt that the culprit was not the previous killer, whilst Bond took the opposing view. James Monro was 'inclined' to agree with Bond, but in the final assessment the police appear to have rejected the McKenzie murder as another 'Ripper' crime.
I have written at length on my opinion of the value of eyewitness testimony, and the caveats to be observed. In the case of Schwartz, in my book, I accepted the police version of his evidence (ref- HO 144/221/A49301C ff 148-159) as being the most accurate and acceptable, and note that in this it is clearly written that the second man was "standing lighting his pipe." Obviously you do not stand and 'light a knife' so the police version must be preferred.
Your comments and observations are incisive and well considered, in theory many things (or options) are possible. In my opinion the chalk writing in Goulston Street was simple graffiti and was not written by the killer. However, the piece of apron was proved to have been cut from Eddowes' apron.
As regards the Stride murder, I have stated that I do not believe it to have been a 'Ripper' killing, giving my reasons. It should be noted, in this regard, that Dr. Bagster Phillips stated at the Stride inquest that the cause of death was "undoubtedly from the loss of blood from the left carotid artery and the division of the wind-pipe." (Stride inquest October 3, 1888).
On October 5, Phillips was recalled and gave further medical evidence. He stated that "I have come to the conclusion that the deceased was seized by the shoulders, placed on the ground, and that the perpetrator of the deed was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased..."
The Coroner said to Dr. Phillips, "Does the presence of the cachous in her hand show that it was done suddenly, or would it simply show a muscular grasp?"
Dr. Phillips replied, "No; I cannot say. You will remember some of the cachous were found in the gutter. I have seen several self-inflicted wounds more extensive than this one, but then they have not divided the carotid artery. You will see by that, as in other cases, there appears to have been a knowledge where to cut the throat."
The Coroner - "Was there any other similarity between this and Chapman's case?"
Dr. Phillips - "There is a great dissimilarity. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertical bone being marked, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones."
Coroner - "Would the murderer be likely to get bloodstained?"
Dr. Phillips - "Not necessarily, for the commencement of the wound and the injury to the vessels would be away from him, and the stream of blood, for stream it would be, would be directed away from him, and towards the waterway already mentioned..."
Descriptions being what they are (usually minimal in detail) it is often easy to 'fit' them to desired or preferred suspects. Tumblety could also be said to 'fit' with what is known of the other suspect, Wentworth Bell Smith, another alleged Canadian.
As I have previously stated I, too, also do not regard Tumblety's age as a reason for dismissing him as a suspect out of hand. My 28 years in the police force, and the taking of innumerable witness statements have given me enough experience to realise that you simply cannot do this. I repeat that the best eyewitness, despite the fact that she did not see the man's full face, was Mrs. Elizabeth Long in Hanbury Street. Her sighting was in broad daylight and at close quarters. In her opinion the man was "over forty."
As regards profiling, I have made my opinion clear. It is based on psychological perceptions and opinion, and is untrustworthy. Many consider it akin to astrology (I had better be careful here as I appear to be straying onto contentious ground). The whole application of the concept is very flexible and 'user friendly' and is based too much on likelihoods and generalisations for my liking. And, in the final analysis, there are always the exceptions to 'the rule' that cannot be accounted for.
May I thank you, and the others who have done so, for taking time out to read my book, and for applying intelligent thought to it.
Stewart |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 03:28 pm | | Mr. FitzGerald's statements regarding existentialism are second rate. It has been well-established that human development is centrally determined by upbringing, environment, and DNA predispositions. We are talking about biology, and events happening to a child before he or she has been able to develop an adult consciousness concerning what is going on about them, therefore can't critically take in what's happening yet, and so becomes much-influenced by it. The brick of conscience is laid (or not laid) later on, higher in the wall, and intelligence as often as not hardens attitudes against critical thinking. The best I can say of an interpretation of existentialism which justifies the above kind of flippant denial of developmental factors is that it is an extreme interpretation.
To say "the plastic profiling art is a product of immature American thought" is jingoism, indicative of pre-critical thinking.
David |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 14 April 1999 - 06:36 am | | Hi All,
Just to add a bit to the melting pot.
I heard recently that some research done in New Jersey found that human shame and guilt kicks in around the age of six months, although I'm sure that the vast majority of us would not have any conscious recollections of such events as diaper-changing or potty training by total strangers! I do have a similar memory at the age of 2 and a half, and to this day cringe with humiliation even though the Norland nannies involved were perfect angels. The fact that it was not my mother on this one occasion in my life was a great source of early embarrassment to me, I swear that is a true story!
My suspect for JtR1 did indeed smoke a pipe and drink in pubs, while my JtR2 (for Stride and possibly Kelly) was semi-literate and possibly anti-Semitic to boot, and could easily have been framed by JtR1's graffito, had he been foolish enough to get his collar felt on the night of the double event. He would then have probably gone down for at least four counts of murder, and JtR1 would have had to curtail his series sharpish.
And for what it's worth, I think Alice McKenzie was indeed a ripper victim, along with a few others after MJK, so I dearly wish JtR2 HAD been nabbed. Still, you can't turn back time I guess...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 14 April 1999 - 10:21 am | | Hi All,
Mr. FitzGerald,
Now that you've made your position on profiling clear, I wonder if you would be so kind as to clarify another statement made by you:
"It is small wonder that this plastic profiling art is the product of American thought."
At first glance, this seems to be extraordinarily prejudiced, hateful tripe spewed by a narrow-minded bigot who has some kind of a problem with Americans. However, I'm sure that's not the case, and that you have a perfectly reasonable, rational explanation for posting garbage like that. I'd really like to hear that explanation, I'm sure the other Americans who post here would, too.
Jim |
Author: Calogridis
Wednesday, 14 April 1999 - 10:27 pm | | Howdy Jim,
Right on, brother! Proud to be States-side with you, dude. And anyway, how many thousands of criminals has profiling caught to date? I'm sure the number is well nigh uncountable, and growing every day. Got to hand it to John Douglas, Bob R., and the rest of the FBI gang in Quantico, VA.
Cheers......Mike |
Author: Michael FitzGerald
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 12:19 am | | Firstly, thank you to Stewart for replying to my post. I am completely out of my depth amongst people who have given the subject such weighty consideration... when I was 8 or 9 what little I knew about Jack the Ripper (call it childish curiosity) used to keep me up at night.. it was fun to 'relive' the experience with Stewart's book, but that was the first time I had delved into the subject in more than a decade. My queries were those of an outsider and not an initiate...
Some comments earlier on in this tree expressed difficulty with Tumblety as a suspect, esp. his homosexuality, his effete nature, the absence of violence from his history. The book went so far as to prove that certain eminences grises in the Scotland Yard hierarchy considered him a likely suspect. My instinct is to suggest that if we are to have an accessible account of his behaviour, the gaps in a fact-based account must be bridged. Perhaps by psychology, perhaps by educated guesswork, at any rate by myth (in its most expansive sense). What the BBC documentary seems to have done for the most incredulous conspiracy theory of these crimes is to entreat its viewers into the 'suspension of disbelief' for its duration. While fictionalising Tumblety as a suspect would inevitably lead us away from the established facts, it provides a framework for linking those facts into a narrative, a framework which can be revised and contested in keeping with those facts. Stewart's book contain the skeleton of such a narrative. The psychologists have their role to play in creating one, as do the detectives. I'm not suggesting that we should settle for a rudely fictionalised account of these crimes; just that, in order to solve or piece together any crime, one has to resort to a narrative, a "line of best fit," so to speak. And I believe that as the facts in this case will not of themselves yield the requisite standard of proof (note the absence of fingerprinting, etc), the detached spectator can only be convinced if he/she is presented with a framework for understanding the theory.
As for the uprising my comments on profiling as the Americanisation of psychology, I'll wear the accusations. Reading back what I said, the last paragraph is quite a jingoistic rant. Sorry. However, Mr. DiPalma invites me to offer a rational explanation (actually reasonable and rational) for my perception. First, I note the entrenchment of profiling as a practice in the American popular culture in this area. David Duchovny's character in the X-files is recruited to the FBI on the basis that his profile was instrumental in catching a serial killer. Jodie's Foster's character in Silence of the Lambs is mentored by a romanticised father-figure who successfully profiled and captured Hannibal Lecter. These events, surfacings of the profiler as modern day dragon-slayer in popular culture, are the fountainhead of a 'cult of profiling' that can be traced, probably, to the publicisation and valorisation of FBI methods in deviant criminal psychology. There was, I believe, a book by one of the FBI psychologists some years back (How to Hunt Monsters? or somesuch) which seems to be the model for fictional portrayals of the profiler.
Second, I think the term "serial killer" and its construction are Americanisms. The subtitle of Stewart's book is a veiled and maybe even unwitting reference to this. The demonisation of the serial killer in the American media (including the fictional media), even possibly in the authoritative literature (the How to Hunt Monsters book?) have made the serial killer a modern bogeyman, a monster in the truest sense. The etymology of "monster" connects it to "demonstrative," and the original conception of monsters in folk-tales was as SIGNS, signifiers of incomprehensible otherness, of deviance from the supposed inner morality of nature. The construction and portrayal of American serial killers by their own media has fulfilled a similar role to the folk-tales, only today the deviance of the monsters is couched in psychological rather than moral terms. Which in itself points to the function of pschological discourse in regulating society in a pseudo-moral way, as arbiter of the approved by designating and punishing otherness and madness. Of course there are multiple murderers in other Western and non-Western countries, and the term serial killer seems to be approved globally. I still believe that the English look at their serial killers in a completely different light. There seemed to be a plaintive tone to one article I read about the deaths in Hyde(?), a sense of asking "Why? How could this happen?" rather than of instantly denominating the deaths as the outworkings of evil, morally or psychologically. This is mere conjecture though. I'd love to see someone study the difference between American and English reactions to multiple murder. There was a interesting book recently on gothicisation of the American murder narrative, which, though I only read a review, seem to pick up my point of the monster as signifier.
Here in Australia, it is hard to say whether we really make monsters of our killers. But we have fallen prey to the imported art of profiling. FBI detectives were recently brought over to work on three murders in Perth, and had nearly immediate "results." These were the harassment of a middle-aged loner, a former depressive patient in a publc service job, who was forced to move back in with his elderly parents during the episode. There was nothing to connect him to the crimes evidentially, merely his type. Consensus that he is not the killer is now shared by all - he seems similar to one of the wretches harried by the London police in 1888. It made a lot of thinking Australians very wary of U.S. police practice, but melted into some very hastily-formed perceptions of police brutality and the current debate over our Prime Minister's courting of a New York-style "zero tolerance" approach on drugs. Many Australians view American police culture as heavy-handed and partial, but in all fairness few consider what they're up against. Profiling fits into the perception of a summary regime, results-oriented and concerned only with maintaing civic order by deterrent punishment.
In short, my perceptions of profiling as imported from America are detailed as above. My previous diatribe was anti-American, I confess, partly because I let my prejudices against psychology as a science bleed into an effigy of the American profiler in his grey suit... I've left myself open to attack again by suggesting that Americans have turned psychology into a regulatory institution, to sate their needs for bogeymen and scapegoats. This is all conjecture, but it should be noted that psychology has always been used in such a way, ever since mental illness was attributed to demons. Foucault illustrated how the asylum was a means for caging the insane, enfocing their separation from rational society in a spatial way as Descartes and Kant had excluded madness from their conceptions of man as a rational being. Psychology serves a functional purpose, something Nietzsche called the expediency of society, and it now works in consort with the legal apparatus to designate and punish deviancy in its pursuit of a disciplined society.
As for identifying existentialism as a means of transcendence of psychological discipline, I should wholeheartedly state my distaste for existentialism as an moronic pursuit of trendy rive-gauche Parisians. Existentialist as Sartre states it is far more prescriptive than psychology could ever be. Mr. Radka's assertion that "we are talking about biology" happily disposes of Sartreanism, but I don't think it can ground a psychological explanation of all behaviour. Edward O. Wilson's dream of accounting for all human behaviour by science will not be realised by the bluntness of psychology. If at all, we will have the neuroscientist and the geneticists to thank. Determinism is an ugly word, we should think more of the cumulative interaction between the neural structure and sensory input, though I am no scientist. I would prefer the neologue coined by Felix Guattari to describe the effect of the external world on the fluxes and schizzes of the human psyche; Chaosmosis. I must believe in some form of transcendence, not the wantonness of existentialism, but something, even if only a higher brick, superimposed on the wall of consciousness.
Thank you for letting me get right off the topic. |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 03:17 am | | Geez,
I wonder what percentage of the readership here managed to digest THAT little lot over their cornflakes thismorning?
Whatever happened to those heroic attempts by Brits and Americans alike to rid the written word of unnecessary jargon, thereby making it as accessible to the 'normal' everyday folk as humanly possible? If I had a couple of spare moments I would attempt to make the above post 'public reader-friendly', but I really can't be arsed...
(Big grin to show I mean no offence)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Michael FitzGerald
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 10:46 am | | Oops. Sorry again, but thanks for the grin (Caz).
I'll save you the time and make what I said reader-friendly myself; heres a blurb.
Because I come from a background in cultural studies, I am interested in the way that serial killers are portrayed and explained by different institutions (the law, psychology, the media) and I borrowed the term 'murder narrative' from a book review I read. Such narratives can be found in newspapers, on TV and in fiction, but these days they borrow heavily from psychology in their views on serial killers. Which is surely better than resorting to ideas like "sin" or "possession by demons." However modern murder narratives are still myths with social and moral undertones. The killers are monsters, which as I said, are signs of otherness, excluded from society. Just like the hebrews banished the scapegoat to the desert after they had consecrated it with the responsibilty for all sin. So murder narratives remind u who we are obliged to be by society, and the consequences of deviancy. These myths also have heroes, and today that role is occupied more and more by profilers, though I could only give a few examples from fiction. The profiler is the modern equivalent of a dragon-slayer; actually I saw the silent movie Nosferatu today, and I think Bram Stoker's Dr. van Helsing, who chases Dracula, is a very close cousin of the modern fictional profiler. Personally, I think its a very hit-and-miss affair which shouldn't be the sole basis of an investigation/case. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 12:15 pm | | Hi All,
Mr. FitzGerald,
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I asked you to explain because it is all too easy to misunderstand what someone is trying to communicate via the written word, not having the benefit of tone and inflection that verbal communication provides.
Having read your reply, I must say the overwhelming irony nearly caused me to choke on my cornflakes. I realize you are new to the study of the Whitechapel murders, but I would ask you to examine the period of September and October 1888, paying particular attention to press coverage of the killings and to the reaction of the English public. Such a study should thoroughly dispel any notion you hold that the demonization of serial killers is peculiar to the American media, or to American culture.
I suggest that the knowledge that there are people among us whose appearance and demeanor are seemingly normal, yet who are capable of horrific slaughter of human beings, is so starkly terrifying on a visceral level as to transcend cultural differences, and requires precious little help from the media to achieve the status of demon.
I have my own reservations on the value of psychology as science, but my understanding of profiling is that it is not an exact science designed to produce prima facie evidence of a suspect's guilt, and that none of its practicioners have ever made any such claims. Rather, it is merely a tool designed to narrow the scope of criminal investigation by suggesting a general personality type, allowing investigators to focus on certain suspects. In that context, it has proven to be effective. If that were not so, law enforcement would have discarded the practice.
Isn't it also true that Dr. David Canter is an experienced profiler?? If so, then at least one eminent British psychologist has embraced the practice, and your stereotype, uh, effigy of the American profiler in his grey suit may be safely put to flame.
Regarding the heavy-handedness of American police, it's all in your perspective. For several years, I worked with a Russian who had been a leading academician at the University of Moscow, and as such, had been arrested and imprisoned by the KGB. He felt the American police were a joke, since "everyone here has rights, so no one is afraid of them."
As to your argument regarding existentialism, I will leave you in the capable hands of Mr. Radka, who is far more learned than I in philosophical matters. I did note with interest your characterization of existentialism "as an moronic pursuit of trendy rive-gauche Parisians." You do seem to be a person with a lot of contempt for anyone who's from a different country than yours - are you now going to have a go at the French??
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 05:51 am | | Mr. FitzGerald,
Having read both, your original, and your follow up posts on this subject, I would like to
complement you on the logic, and clarity in which
you present your opinion.
Logic, clarity, and continuity, are welcome
attributes to the casebook, as well as a sense
of humor.:-)
I hope you will continue to share with us, your point of view.
Having said that,tell me/us, who do you think
is JtR.
Best Regards
Joseph |
|
|
|
|
