Ripper Psychology

[DJA]

Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - Wikipedia

Dr J was Gull,Mr H was Sutton,Inspector Newcomen was Major Henry Smith (RLS's cousin) ,the 8 yo girl "trodden on" was Mary Ann Kelly (circa 1868) who began blackmailing Sutton again when the tale returned as a stage play.(Sutton was Mary Ann Kelly's Vestry Medical Officer in 1868 ).

Nichols and Eddowes were Sutton's in patients from December 1867 with rheumatic fever, meeting once again in Thrawl Street with Nichols moving next door to Eddowes just before hopping.

Add Chapman with TB and Hip Lip Lizzie ......


Labouchere Amendment - Wikipedia

[caz]

Firstly, I can do math - or the correct way of saying it - maths. If prevalence is 36%, it means 64% is......

I never said anything about genetics alone, not sure who you are aiming that at. I believe environments do play a huge part but that is not limited to abusive parents. That plays purely to narcissism.

Actully “bad seed” is a good description. Those that are interested in lust murder have a low empathy threshold. The value of human life is insignificant to the quest to feel something - often murder provides that something. Childhood abuse is not as prevalent as much as people think. Almost everyone of the worst serial killers you can name had what most would describe as fairly usual upbringings. If you look at studies of the serial killer brain activity, there is usually lack of activity in the frontal lobe versus that of atypical humans.

I’d say Google it, but apparently that is how I fail to be as well read as you.

I think RJ may have misunderstood the thrust of my post. All my fault, not his.

My only point really was that unless there is evidence of a mental illness, as soon as an offender becomes an adult, they alone must bear total responsibility for what they do to their fellow human beings - no excuses. "My parents really f***ed me up." Childhood abuse in all of its forms undoubtedly damages the adult to a greater or lesser degree. We can all remember one or both parents treating us in a way that we still believe was unfair at the time. What it doesn't - can never do - is force an otherwise sane adult to do bad things to people, or excuse the behaviour. Are different sentences handed down for murder, depending on the degree of abuse the convicted murderer suffered as a child, at the hands of a parent, uncle, teacher or priest? If not, should they be? I don't know. Maybe RJ does.

My original point was about killers who seek to justify their wicked actions as adults, by blaming "Mummy and Daddy" for making them do it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

"The same may be said of yet another series of comments on the kidney, these found in the 1910 memoirs of former City Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith. Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

1. I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it. 9

As with Dr Openshaw's supposed findings, this is a stunning paragraph which would seem to put the provenance of the Lusk Kidney beyond question."


Ironically Sutton had stepped down from the Pathological Museum the previous year making Openshaw his boss.

Hi Dave.

I have a press cutting of an interview with Dr Brown which appears to contradict Smith's memoirs...



If the interview is accurate it makes it impossible to decide where the kidney came from.

[DJA]

Hi Dave.

I have a press cutting of an interview with Dr Brown which appears to contradict Smith's memoirs...



If the interview is accurate it makes it impossible to decide where the kidney came from.

Brown was incompetent,as that part of the interview clearly illustrates.

Alternatively he may also have been part of a cover up.

[Wickerman]

Firstly, I can do math - or the correct way of saying it - maths.

[caz]

Right, I think I've got the gist of DJA's theory now. Henry Yawn Sutton was being blackmailed by the Dave Clark Five. The first one's alias was Gladys, and Sutton was very nearly caught "Feeling Glad All Over". He roughed up the third one a bit, for doing a cover version of the Hippy Lippy Shake, but for his swan song he left Mary in "Bits and Pieces".

I bet he had a rotten childhood, missing out on the swinging sixties by more than a century. No wonder he became a monster.

[Abby Normal]

Erobitha - If you want to educate yourself instead of just trying to score some cheap point against me, can I suggest a book?

The Anatomy of Violence: the Biological Roots of Crime by Adrian Raine, a British psychiatrist who is at the University of Pennsylvania. Of the books I've read on the subject, this is the best and most up-to-date.

He believes--as I do--that there are important genetic factors involved in the creation of a violent criminal.

He just isn't ignorant enough to think that environment doesn't also play a key role. In fact, scientific studies show that it is often the key role. Further complicating matters, there are also societal/cultural factors to consider. If violence is strictly genetic, why are the murder rates so drastically different in different societies?

When Raine and similar psychiatrists speak of childhood abuse (Dr. Michael Stone also comes to mind) they explicitly discuss cases where the offender may have been lying about their childhoods. They aren't stupid. They rely on scientific data.

Environment matters. As does the culture. "Bad seed" doesn't explain everything.

Ciao.

as usual rj you are correct. its nature and nurture that in most cases produces a serial killer. its a combination. yes there are exceptions, like dahmer, but they are the exception that proves the rule.

[Wickerman]

Brown was incompetent,as that part of the interview clearly illustrates.

Alternatively he may also have been part of a cover up.

I couldn't say anything about Brown's competence, it's just that analysis shows Smith's record for accuracy leaves a lot to be desired, which is a common problem throughout all memoirs.

[DJA]

I couldn't say anything about Brown's competence, it's just that analysis shows Smith's record for accuracy leaves a lot to be desired, which is a common problem throughout all memoirs.

Do you doubt that Sutton gave his opinion and pledged his reputation?

Suggest you consider the various implications before replying.

Smith knew what was going on!

Mitre Square was an enormous cover up.

[Scott Nelson]

So Henry Smith was covering up for Sutton?

[clark2710]

Possibly preserved in spirits of wine, but here is a comprehensive paper on the kidney.
https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

Thank you, I am a slow reader but I'm going to read through this and see what they all thought at the time. Were these "experts" of the day considered accurate by today's standards? That is to ask, they didn't have our tech and what not medically but if they diagnosed back then would it be the same today? In other words by our thinking today how credible are "experts" of that day regarding medicine?

[DJA]

So Henry Smith was covering up for Sutton?

Sort of.

Thought he was sooooo smart. Arrogant as all Hell.

If you read his memoir,the guy he sees when Jack the Ripper is supposed to turn up is ~ 5'3". IIRC.

[Wickerman]

Thank you, I am a slow reader but I'm going to read through this and see what they all thought at the time. Were these "experts" of the day considered accurate by today's standards? That is to ask, they didn't have our tech and what not medically but if they diagnosed back then would it be the same today? In other words by our thinking today how credible are "experts" of that day regarding medicine?

Well, they didn't have our technology, but we don't have their kidney.

[clark2710]

Well, they didn't have our technology, but we don't have their kidney.

Indeed true