Different Killers

[Batman]

Hello Abby. Thanks.

"If Isenschmid thought the women were sheep, why would he ask a sheep for money?"

Because his delusions changed RAPIDLY. (See charts.)


Cheers.
LC

Between 1887 and 1908 isn't rapidly. That is 11 years.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4514

In fact between his first admission and the last notes in 1887 he is getting better, not worse.

He is insane because..

1. claims he can build a church in 6 days.
2. claims to be a member of parliament soon.
3. talks excitedly and gets violent.
4. Threatened to kill his wife and children
5. Threatened to burn down homes.
6. Threatened to kill the queen.
7. Threatened to kill a man.

There is nothing about delusions of butchering or seeing people as ungulates.


Also he gets well -- Oct 17: Very quiet and well behaved in the ward. At times gives one the impression of being perhaps too quiet.
It is noticed now that the right side of his face is altogether different to the left. Whether this be due to malnourishment or in part to a general paralysis is doubtful.
There is decided loss of expression on the right side of his face and it appears altogether smaller than the left. His left ear is very markedly smaller than the right. His tongue is protruded slightly to the right. W11.
Nov 28. Quiet and well conducted and working very hard in the kitchen. Exceedingly sanguine.
Dec. 2: Discharge recovered.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby. Thanks.

"If Isenschmid thought the women were sheep, why would he ask a sheep for money?"

Because his delusions changed RAPIDLY. (See charts.)

"If he thought Chapman was a sheep to be butchered, why just remove and take away the uterus?"

Haven't the foggiest. But, again, his delusions were bizarre.

"If he thought he was butchering sheep, and like you point out-he thought "everything belonged to him"- why leave Nichols and Chapman's bodies before finishing, and why wait until he was alone with Chapman before he attacked her?"

Well, look at Long's story. He was talking loudly and asking, "Will you?" As I said in the essay, he may have been asking for money. Annie, who was "out of it," misunderstood. No reason to strike. BUT, when they reached the backyard and she clearly refused him the money, ("no.") that would be frustrating and he would begin to strangle her--like his wife in an analogous situation.

All in the essay.

Cheers.
LC

thanks Lynn
what edition of Ripperologist is it in?

[lynn cates]

#

Hello Abby. Thanks.

#125. LOVE to discuss.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby. Thanks.

#125. LOVE to discuss.

Cheers.
LC

thanks. I'll take another read.

[John G]

Having given further consideration to the suspect, Isenschmid, I have no alternative but to reaffirm my original conclusions that he is a completely unrealistic suspect in respect of the Nichols and Chapman murders.

Firstly, the only empirical evidence linking him to the crimes are the highly unsatisfactory submissions of Fiddymont et al. But what does this evidence actually amount to? There was no positive identification of Isenschmid, all we have is an account of a man supposedly acting suspiciously. And what is this analysis based upon? Apparently he had spots of blood on his hand- surely not unusual for a pork butcher, even assuming it was Isenschmid- and we are told that his shirt was badly torn. But surely even if these statements are completely accurate they are far more suggestive of describing the appearance of someone who has recently been involved in a fight, rather than, say, a person who has recently eviscerated Annie Chapman?

Upon leaving the pub we are told that his eyes were "wide-looking and staring" and that he walked with a "peculiar stride". Are we really to believe that the witness could discern the man's mental state from such observations? How is it remotely possible to draw conclusions about an individual's mental state simply by the way they walk, or to make such deductions from such ridiculously subjective criteria as an analysis of the man's eye characteristics?

We are further informed, as he was followed by the witness Taylor, that he seemed nervous and frightened and that he held his coat together with the collar buttoned up. However, it is only the witness's subjective opinion that he appeared frightened, but would this hardly be surprising if he noticed he was being followed? I mean, perhaps he thought he was about to be robbed.

Of course, the implication of the buttoned up coat is that he was hiding the fact that beneath the garment was evidence of Chapman's murder: blood, gore, body parts. But this sighting was around an hour and half after the likely time of the murder; how is it credible that the suspect would still be wandering around the streets, and entering public buildings, drawing suspicion upon himself, without making any effort to clean himself up and dispose of any incriminating evidence after such a significant amount of time had elapsed?

And if you argue that he was in such a delusional state that he was unaware of what he'd done then why act so suspiciously and try and conceal the evidence? And why had he not attracted anyone's suspicion before now?

Tuning to the specifics of the Chapman murder. As I noted in my previous post Dr Phillips was clearly impressed by how effectively the killer was able to eviscerate his victim, demonstrating considerable anatomical knowledge, whilst working rapidly and in poor lighting conditions.

And as Trevor Marriott has pointed out, the conclusions and observations of the experts that he consulted, in respect of Chapman, are that not only does the evisceration of a person require very different skills than that required to eviscerate an animal, but that, taking into account the poor lighting conditions and the speed at which the killer would have had to have worked, even a skilled modern-day surgeon would not have been able to accomplish such a feat with the same degree of surgical skill.

Whether you agree with these conclusions or not, is it even remotely credible that a pork butcher, whilst in the throes of some terrible delusion, could have accomplished such a task?

And what do we know of Issenschmid's propensity for violence? It is clear from the records that he was suffering from a wide-range of delusions, some violent, some not. However, at no point does he talk about a desire to mutilate or eviscerate anyone, not even to the remotest degree. And what is surely obvious is that whoever murdered Nichols and Chapman had probably harboured a highly developed and specific fantasy for some time.

Moreover, if Issenschmid ever harboured similar fantasies why did he never reveal them? After all, he had no problem in revealing a diverse range of other remarkable delusions, some of them violent in nature.

There is in fact no evidence that issenschmid exercised any of his violent delusions, at least to any significant degree. Wouldn't it be totally remarkable if the only two occasions when he felt compelled to act upon a violent fantasy, it would be one that he'd never revealed, it would be totally unwitnessed, and it would be more extreme in character then any violent fantasy that he had ever mentioned?

What other evidence is there against this most unsatisfactory of suspects? Well, apparently he used to wear a leather apron, more or less a prerequisite for any serious suspect in 1888, but surely not today. And, oh, he collected sheep' s heads, but this was clearly in the course of his business; not that such an unremarkable fact, as it applies to a delusional butcher, would mean very much anyway.

Of course, accepting that this suspect killed Nichols and Chapman would also mean that Eddowes and Kelly were killed by another perpetrator, This fact alone should be sufficient to disqualify him as a serious suspect: in my opinion it is not credible that more than one killer, capable of such extreme and highly unusual crimes, would be operating in 1888 over such a short time frame and within such a small geographical area. Copycat? Surely they exist mainly in crime fiction. Attempts to blame the crime on the Ripper? The murders of Eddowes and Kelly were, in my opinion, the product of a very disturbed mind and therefore something that very few individuals would be capable of doing. Anyway, if you wanted to make Eddowes seem like a Ripper victim, surely all a killer had to do was cut her throat, in a similar way to, say, Stride (I'm sure that irony isn't lost on those who propose Issenschmid as a serious suspect); there was clearly no need to greatly increase the risk of getting caught in the act by carrying out mutilations. That would surely qualify as an act of madness.

[Michael W Richards]

Why lie if he has every reason to be there??

Schwartz is on his way home.

His reason for being on Berner Street is that he MUST be there as that street is part of his way home.

If the time he arrives in Berner Street is also the time that Stride was being attacked then there is absolutely no reason why he wouldn't have seen it unless he was blind or it never happened... Which is ridiculous because she is dead and her body lying a few feet from the gate.

Nobody saw her standing by the club side door despite people being there.

In order to present Schwartz as a liar one still has to give him the right to be there at the time and place because he must if he is going home. Nobody can take that from him.

In any modern investigation someone leaving somewhere and going somewhere else would create a timing which if intersecting with a murder in terms of time and place would make them a person of interest. They would be sought after for questioning, period.

2 points on the above.....first...we have no idea where Schwartz was living at the start of that day, he may well have been living in one of the cottages inside the gates, and secondly, his story isn't realistic....checking to see if a move that likely involved little but clothing some 12 hours later isn't plausible.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Spotty. Thanks.

Actually, in a weak moment, many of us do the same. I recall that, back in my Druitt days (when I accepted all that rot about a sexual serial killer), I made that VERY claim about Mac. I have since matured.

Cheers.
LC

And I guess become better informed as well Lynn.

[Michael W Richards]

Not really.......my assumption is that the murderer was also a petty thief - likely another poor denizen of Whitechapel...


Greg

What kind of petty thief tries to rob destitute women? Answer..a very confused one to be sure.

The facts state that Liz and Mary were given money the day they died, 6d for Liz for her cleaning efforts, and a coin from Maria to Mary for who knows what. The other three were almost certainly destitute, and the first 2 Canonicals certainly were.

Robbery, even as a premise, doesn't work.

[lynn cates]

read

Hello John. Thanks.

Was it consideration or did you actually read his charts and my essay? Some of this I addressed.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Abby. Thanks.

"If Isenschmid thought the women were sheep, why would he ask a sheep for money?"

Because his delusions changed RAPIDLY. (See charts.)

"If he thought Chapman was a sheep to be butchered, why just remove and take away the uterus?"

Haven't the foggiest. But, again, his delusions were bizarre.

"If he thought he was butchering sheep, and like you point out-he thought "everything belonged to him"- why leave Nichols and Chapman's bodies before finishing, and why wait until he was alone with Chapman before he attacked her?"

Well, look at Long's story. He was talking loudly and asking, "Will you?" As I said in the essay, he may have been asking for money. Annie, who was "out of it," misunderstood. No reason to strike. BUT, when they reached the backyard and she clearly refused him the money, ("no.") that would be frustrating and he would begin to strangle her--like his wife in an analogous situation.

All in the essay.

Cheers.
LC

One of the things we have to accept about delusions is that while there are rules, the rules don't conform to any system we expect.

If a man thinks he is Jesus Christ, he likely doesn't keep Kosher despite the fact that Jesus did. That delusion is there for a reason. It reflects a state of mind, a problem, a need. But not an actual other reality.

A delusional man can see a woman and a sheep in the person. He can kill the sheep, and kill the woman, all at the same time without there being the slightest glitch in his delusion. The brain adapts. It can choose what input to recognize and what to ignore.

So for example when I was delusional because of a medication snafu, I thought I had essentially secret service protection. I didn't see them because I wasn't hallucinating, but I knew they were there. When I went to class I made sure I sat somewhere with several free seats behind me for my bodyguards. So if I'm saving them seats, they are real, right? Except I never told anyone other than my doctor, I didn't introduce them to anyone, I didn't give them names or whatever, I didn't talk to them. They weren't real. Except they were. Both at the same time. The delusion was serving my need to get through a very peculiar time. I felt unsafe. I was convinced I had bodyguards, and that made me feel safe. But I wasn't hallucinating, and I didn't require anything more to feel safe. I didn't need to know who these guys were, what their story was. Their mere presence solved my problem, so no more back story was required. Maybe it would have been if it had lasted more than five days. The brain is the wild west.

But there is also a certain logic. People who think they are Superman all have one thing in common. They want to be seen as a hero. Whatever else the delusion holds for them, they have that. And people who think they are Superman don't kill. Not on purpose. The story of Superman has rules, and these rules are obeyed. Same with Jesus, same with God, same with Elvis. There is a story that goes with the character, and that story is adhered to.

If the delusion is that aliens are taking over people and they have to be destroyed, it's less clear, But rules still apply. There is usually no telling who a patient will deem an alien. Those rules are the patients alone, and it's not universal. It's not always people they don't like, or authority figures. But whether the alien is a mean doctor or their own child, they will attack. They have to. Those are the rules. It may destroy them to do it, but they will do it.

This may sound offensive to some, but delusions are like religion. In order to be Jewish you (in theory) have to believe in such classics as a talking snake, an invisible drunk, food falling from the sky, two of everything in a boat... this is not logic as we know it today. It's ridiculous. Total nonsense. But that goes with rules. Thou shalt not a whole lot of things. Keeping the Sabbath, no other gods before me, giving to charity, animal sacrifices. Rules that go along with these ridiculous stories, and the rules are not necessarily self evident in either the story of the Jews or in the behavior of the Jews. Someone who has never heard of religion would look at Judaism, and it would look exactly like a delusion. And like a delusion, religion is a a very odd but very capable stabilizing force. It creates structure where there is none.

Lynn knows that I don't agree with the mental health parts of his theory, I interpret it a different way. But in it's bare bones, Nothing Lynn concludes about Isenschmidt is technically wrong. It can happen that way, although it's exceedingly rare. I have a different diagnosis I think is more likely that makes him less likely to manage what "the Ripper" manged, but delusions can work like that. Mostly they don't, but it has happened, and we know that from the psychotic breaks associated with drug use. PCP messes you up that badly that fast. And anything drugs can do, brains can in theory do on their own. It is not black and white, one or the other. Sheep or woman. It can be both. He can interact with both separately. Does it make sense? Can a man be both a man and a god and son of a god all at once? Trust me. We believe weirder things every day without thinking about it.

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

Was it consideration or did you actually read his charts and my essay? Some of this I addressed.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I did consider the Colney Hatch Report referred to by Batman. I would love to read your essay and the charts, not just in the interests of objectivity,but because I believe I'll find them interesting. However, I have an embarrassing confession: I haven't a clue where to find them, despite my best efforts! Not a very satisfactory explanation I know, but at least I'm honest!

I am, of course, prepared to reconsider any conclusions I have made in the light of new evidence and informed opinion.

I would, therefore, be very grateful if you could direct me to the relevant sources.

[Wickerman]

Robbery, even as a premise, doesn't work.

Hi Michael.
Gangs did prey on these women for the pitiful coppers they earned, so someone recognised a benefit, however small.

[Abby Normal]

One of the things we have to accept about delusions is that while there are rules, the rules don't conform to any system we expect.

If a man thinks he is Jesus Christ, he likely doesn't keep Kosher despite the fact that Jesus did. That delusion is there for a reason. It reflects a state of mind, a problem, a need. But not an actual other reality.

A delusional man can see a woman and a sheep in the person. He can kill the sheep, and kill the woman, all at the same time without there being the slightest glitch in his delusion. The brain adapts. It can choose what input to recognize and what to ignore.

So for example when I was delusional because of a medication snafu, I thought I had essentially secret service protection. I didn't see them because I wasn't hallucinating, but I knew they were there. When I went to class I made sure I sat somewhere with several free seats behind me for my bodyguards. So if I'm saving them seats, they are real, right? Except I never told anyone other than my doctor, I didn't introduce them to anyone, I didn't give them names or whatever, I didn't talk to them. They weren't real. Except they were. Both at the same time. The delusion was serving my need to get through a very peculiar time. I felt unsafe. I was convinced I had bodyguards, and that made me feel safe. But I wasn't hallucinating, and I didn't require anything more to feel safe. I didn't need to know who these guys were, what their story was. Their mere presence solved my problem, so no more back story was required. Maybe it would have been if it had lasted more than five days. The brain is the wild west.

But there is also a certain logic. People who think they are Superman all have one thing in common. They want to be seen as a hero. Whatever else the delusion holds for them, they have that. And people who think they are Superman don't kill. Not on purpose. The story of Superman has rules, and these rules are obeyed. Same with Jesus, same with God, same with Elvis. There is a story that goes with the character, and that story is adhered to.

If the delusion is that aliens are taking over people and they have to be destroyed, it's less clear, But rules still apply. There is usually no telling who a patient will deem an alien. Those rules are the patients alone, and it's not universal. It's not always people they don't like, or authority figures. But whether the alien is a mean doctor or their own child, they will attack. They have to. Those are the rules. It may destroy them to do it, but they will do it.

This may sound offensive to some, but delusions are like religion. In order to be Jewish you (in theory) have to believe in such classics as a talking snake, an invisible drunk, food falling from the sky, two of everything in a boat... this is not logic as we know it today. It's ridiculous. Total nonsense. But that goes with rules. Thou shalt not a whole lot of things. Keeping the Sabbath, no other gods before me, giving to charity, animal sacrifices. Rules that go along with these ridiculous stories, and the rules are not necessarily self evident in either the story of the Jews or in the behavior of the Jews. Someone who has never heard of religion would look at Judaism, and it would look exactly like a delusion. And like a delusion, religion is a a very odd but very capable stabilizing force. It creates structure where there is none.

Lynn knows that I don't agree with the mental health parts of his theory, I interpret it a different way. But in it's bare bones, Nothing Lynn concludes about Isenschmidt is technically wrong. It can happen that way, although it's exceedingly rare. I have a different diagnosis I think is more likely that makes him less likely to manage what "the Ripper" manged, but delusions can work like that. Mostly they don't, but it has happened, and we know that from the psychotic breaks associated with drug use. PCP messes you up that badly that fast. And anything drugs can do, brains can in theory do on their own. It is not black and white, one or the other. Sheep or woman. It can be both. He can interact with both separately. Does it make sense? Can a man be both a man and a god and son of a god all at once? Trust me. We believe weirder things every day without thinking about it.

Hi Errata
fascinating.

But what your take on Lynn's idea that in the first instant he talks to the women thinking that theyre his wife and strangles them and then quickly envisions that theyre sheep so "butchers" them? In your experience, is this likely? even possible?

But then doesn't really finish completely butchering them as a butcher would?

If its because hes scared off, especially in the case of Polly-doesn't that indicate that knows hes doing wrong?

Eventhough Issenschmidt is severly mentally ill, I find it hard to believe.

You said you disagree with him - Id like to see your usual in depth views on why you DONT agree with Lynn's assessment.

[Harry D]

I think Lynn's theory is crackpot. Don't let him pull the wool over your eyes.

[John Wheat]

I think Lynn's theory is crackpot.

Well I wouldn't go quite that far.

Cheers John