Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

just an idea - thoughts please :)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    skills

    Hello Caroline. Hate to stay on this thread--don't wish to highjack, you know.

    But much of what you say was Baxter's take at inquest. He recognised the vast difference in Annie, Liz and Kate's wounds, but did note that the killer succeeded in all 3 cases. Of course, that is the case in all successful murders.

    "But isn't there some evidence to suggest that the killer of Nichols absolutely had his wits about him and judged the timing of his departure rather finely to avoid being seen in the act?"

    Well, he did avoid detection--I'll give you that. Was he sane? Don't think so.

    And he certainly retained his knife skills. But it seems that lifelong skills are retained even when other things have gone.

    Now, I had better exit so all may discuss accomplices.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by RedBundy13 View Post
      Hey D,

      Maybe he wouldnt have to jump the fence, maybe he could have just stayed in his own yard and screamed bloody murder. And when the killer tried to beat a hasty retreat he could have follwed, at a safe distance of course, and continued his screams of murder until others had arrived.
      Just one scenario, Im sure there are a million others...
      Hi RedB, any idea what Jack looked like at work? Have you ever seen the eyes of a fellow brother that have just killed somebody ?

      I know how Cadosh felt this morning, yeah, that I know...

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
        Hello Caroline. Hate to stay on this thread--don't wish to highjack, you know.

        But much of what you say was Baxter's take at inquest. He recognised the vast difference in Annie, Liz and Kate's wounds, but did note that the killer succeeded in all 3 cases. Of course, that is the case in all successful murders.

        "But isn't there some evidence to suggest that the killer of Nichols absolutely had his wits about him and judged the timing of his departure rather finely to avoid being seen in the act?"

        Well, he did avoid detection--I'll give you that. Was he sane? Don't think so.

        And he certainly retained his knife skills. But it seems that lifelong skills are retained even when other things have gone.

        Now, I had better exit so all may discuss accomplices.

        Cheers.
        LC
        I don't know that the two aren't related Lynn... Someone as profoundly disabled by mental illness as you describe has to have an accomplice in some way. I mean people that debilitated are not capable of surviving on their own, if for no other reason than they are incredibly dangerous to themselves. They don't particularly eat, they don't clean, they have a nasty habit of setting things on fire because they forget they put something on the stove. I mean, as looney as most people think Kosminski was, he was astonishingly high functioning. For someone to be so far gone into their disease as you describe, SOMEONE has to be looking after him. Maybe not living with him, but providing for him.

        I hate to use this metaphor, but it's the only one I can think of. A person that delusional and that violent is like a super aggressive dog in the neighborhood. The only way super aggressive dogs survive with people is if they are kept. A wild aggressive dog would simply get shot early on in it's life, or removed. So the only way one lives near me is if it's someone's pet. And if that dog attacks someone, the only way that happens is if the owner lets it off it's leash, or doesn't bother to fix a hole in the fence. Which is why dog owners are criminally liable for the actions of their pets.

        If Jack was really that far gone, someone let him off his leash. Repeatedly. So the question then becomes, was that out of malice or out of negligence?
        The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

        Comment


        • #94
          accomplice

          Hello Errata. Well, it seems that Jacob did NOT have an accomplice. He wandered the streets and nearly starved. But he was caught fairly quickly.

          On the other hand, his most violent cycles seem to have lasted only a week or two.

          You might go to Chris' thread and see if he did not survive without an accomplice.

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • #95
            Yes, But

            Originally posted by Mutt View Post

            With that said, I would not be surprised to learn that the killer did in fact write one or more of the letters. It is not unheard of for killers to taunt the press; Zodiac, Dennis Rader, The Padua Killer, and others are all known or believed to have taunted the media or police with letters.
            Hi Mutt,

            You are right, of course about many serial killers writing to the police. I would add Peter Kuersten, the Dusseldorf Murderer & David Berkowitz (Son of Sam).

            Some of these, though, wrote to the police in imitation of Jack the Ripper.
            This can be argued both ways:
            (1) The letters were sent only because they were consciously aping the Ripper.
            (2) Other serial killers (kindred spirits?) see nothing illogical in the idea that the Ripper might have sent letters to the authorities.

            Cheers, Bridewell.
            "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
              Hi RedBundy

              Sorry, your premise that a second person would get nothing out of it is a bit naive. I think there are a number of cases where there were two murderers, although one of the two dominated the other, as in the case of the Moors murderers, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, and the killers in the 1993 murder of Liverpool toddler Jamie Bulger, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, themselves 11 and 12 at the time of the crime.

              Best regards

              Chris
              Hello Chris,

              This is something I feel very, very strongly about, so you will have to forgive me. I strongly object to the lumping together of Myra Hindley etc with the children who killed Jamie Bulger. A child under 15 is NOT responsible for its actions. I gather that children in England who have committed a crime are asked whether they know the difference between right and wrong. Damned if they do, damned if they donīt. A parent has the responsibility for an under-age child. Not that I`m suggesting that the parents`should be punished, but that they bear the responsibility for bringing up and taking care of their children. If they are unable or unwilling to do this, then society must intervene, and I donīt mean by sending the child to prison.

              Of course some children of perfectly good parents grow up to be criminals, but a good many suffer abuse and neglect and Frank Harris`comment"if you suffer the poor to grow up as animals, they may change to become wild beasts and rend you" is as valid today as it was then.

              Please donīt label children as evil - this sells newspapers, perhaps - but I do believe that a child is not responsible for its actions - children have not yet developed the maturity to fully realise the consequenses of their actions.

              All good wishes,
              C4

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Errata View Post
                I think the new numbers are that 1 in 25 people are sociopathic. And clearly they (or maybe we) aren't all killers. It can be congenital. But just as often it's adaptive. But it isn't an illness per se. Illnesses have symptoms, causes and effects. Sociopathy doesn't. It is a state of being. Like being a brunette, or "double jointed", or left handed.

                The thing to remember in psychology is that nothing is an illness unless it causes dysfunction. A number of people with Autism are sociopathic by the very nature of their disease. They aren't harmful, or dangerous, and it causes no dysfunction. Sociopathy also makes people very good businessmen. It isn't a problem in their lives so it isn't a mental illness. When sociopaths start committing crimes, or otherwise injuring people, then it's a problem. Then it is Antisocial Personality Disorder which is different in some pretty subtle ways.

                Sociopaths aren't evil by nature. And of course it all depends on how you define evil. The way most people define it is a bad way. I don't think there is a good way. I've abandoned the notion altogether. I think that often labeling someone or something as "evil" is hypocritical by nature. If you say someone is evil, then you dismiss them. They become unworthy of your regard or attention. Unworthy of empathy or respect. Now if a killer had regard, empathy and respect for their victim, they wouldn't have killed, and wouldn't be "evil". If we don't have empathy and respect for the killer, then a: often we then become the killers through judicial murder and b:we are engaging in behavior we have previously already defined as "evil". Much easier to take the judgement out of it.
                Hello Errata!
                Are you saying that you believe that people who commit dreadful crimes are not responsible for their actions? I don't really understand your stance. I've read through your post several times and find it confusing.
                Carol

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
                  Evil is mentally ill Carol. It's what we now call psychopathic. It requires no supernatural agency and the latest evidence suggests it is a congenital condition.

                  And you are right. Many believe Jtr to have been psychopathic or evil if you prefer.



                  Greg
                  Hi Greg!

                  Are you saying that people who commit terrible crimes are not responsible for their actions? If you are saying that then the concepts of 'right and wrong' and 'free choice' have no value.

                  Carol

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Low Affect...

                    Originally posted by Carol View Post
                    Hi Greg!

                    Are you saying that people who commit terrible crimes are not responsible for their actions? If you are saying that then the concepts of 'right and wrong' and 'free choice' have no value.

                    Carol
                    No I'm not saying that Carol. Psychopaths know what they're doing and they choose to do it. They simply don't have the conscience, emotional empathy or fears of the rest of us.


                    Greg

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      But isn't there some evidence to suggest that the killer of Nichols absolutely had his wits about him and judged the timing of his departure rather finely to avoid being seen in the act?
                      Hi Caz,

                      The fact that PC Neil was able to hear PC Thain parolling up Brady Street as he was passing Buck's Row, is at least very interesting in this regard. I'm quite sure the Ripper was listening for such sounds while he was with his victims, and can easily imagine that in this case he heard Charles Cross enter Buck's Row. Cross would arrive at the scene in 1 to 1.5 minutes. The fact that blood was still oozing from her throat when Neil arrived some minutes after Cross had left the scene supports the notion that when Cross stumbled upon Nichols' dead body, the Ripper had just left. I don't think that was a coincidence.

                      All the best,
                      Frank
                      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Carol View Post
                        Hello Errata!
                        Are you saying that you believe that people who commit dreadful crimes are not responsible for their actions? I don't really understand your stance. I've read through your post several times and find it confusing.
                        Carol
                        That probably because it is confusing. Sometimes I'm way more articulate in my head than on paper.

                        Basically I think it comes down to this. There's nothing wrong with being a sociopath if you don't commit crime. And the vast majority don't. It isn't a disease, or an illness. It isn't a choice. It just is.

                        There are people who are not responsible for their crimes. And I can't think of a single serial killer I would put in that category. But speaking from experience, there is a very weird period of time after the onset of a mental illness, or the onset of a symptom during which a person is completely absorbed into it. They don't perceive a change, they have no reason to question the input they are getting. They don't know their brain is lying to them. Whether they do not realize that depression is chemical and not emotional, or they don't realize they are delusional, the result is the same. They are completely unaware that something is wrong.

                        And that is the most tragic part of their illness. And sometimes the most dangerous. A perfect example is those horrible stories of soldiers with PTSD, who don't know it, and start having paranoid delusions and end up killing their families. If any of them had any idea they could be dangerous, they never would have been near their loved ones until they had a certain confidence in their own control. Are these guys responsible for their crimes? Morally, no. Legally yes. What happened wasn't their fault. And they will feel guilty about it until they day they die, and that's not entirely fair. Do they need to be tried for the murders? Yes. And punished. Because our society doesn't particularly work otherwise. But are they evil, or bad people, or even conventionally dangerous? They aren't.

                        The mentally ill are often failed colossally by society. Jared Loughner was a dangerous schizophrenic. Everybody knew it. They knew he was going to kill people some day. And they did nothing. Jared Loughner's brain was telling him in every way that his delusions were true. Not just giving him the ideas, but giving him the sensory information to back that up. Why would he question that? Would you? Would I? But there is a difference between him and the poor soldier. He had seen a mental health professional, who told him he was not well. He chose not to believe that. And his loved ones backed him up on that. So is Jared Loughner responsible for his actions? Yes he is. As are his family and friends, who in my mind bear equal responsibility because they essentially knew a bomb was going to go off, and told no one. Not even him.

                        Mental illness between onset and acceptance is a rough time. But once someone tells you that something is very wrong, you have an obligation to minimize the damage. You become responsible for your actions. Even if you don't really believe something is wrong, you have to respect another person's fear, or worry. You don't think your house is going to burn down, but you put up a smoke detector anyway. It's what responsible adults do. And yes, the stigma of mental illness is still terrible. Suck it up. We all have to.

                        So in brief, people who are ill and don't know it are not morally responsible for any crime they commit. And that window persists until someone tells them that something is wrong. At which point, you have been warned. If you choose not to heed that warning, it just like playing Russian roulette. You may firmly believe that it's going to come up on one of the five empty chambers, but you know damn well theres a possibility of getting the bullet.
                        The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
                          No I'm not saying that Carol. Psychopaths know what they're doing and they choose to do it. They simply don't have the conscience, emotional empathy or fears of the rest of us.


                          Greg
                          Hello Greg,
                          Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate you taking the trouble to explain it to me.
                          Carol

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Errata View Post
                            That probably because it is confusing. Sometimes I'm way more articulate in my head than on paper.

                            Basically I think it comes down to this. There's nothing wrong with being a sociopath if you don't commit crime. And the vast majority don't. It isn't a disease, or an illness. It isn't a choice. It just is.

                            There are people who are not responsible for their crimes. And I can't think of a single serial killer I would put in that category. But speaking from experience, there is a very weird period of time after the onset of a mental illness, or the onset of a symptom during which a person is completely absorbed into it. They don't perceive a change, they have no reason to question the input they are getting. They don't know their brain is lying to them. Whether they do not realize that depression is chemical and not emotional, or they don't realize they are delusional, the result is the same. They are completely unaware that something is wrong.

                            And that is the most tragic part of their illness. And sometimes the most dangerous. A perfect example is those horrible stories of soldiers with PTSD, who don't know it, and start having paranoid delusions and end up killing their families. If any of them had any idea they could be dangerous, they never would have been near their loved ones until they had a certain confidence in their own control. Are these guys responsible for their crimes? Morally, no. Legally yes. What happened wasn't their fault. And they will feel guilty about it until they day they die, and that's not entirely fair. Do they need to be tried for the murders? Yes. And punished. Because our society doesn't particularly work otherwise. But are they evil, or bad people, or even conventionally dangerous? They aren't.

                            The mentally ill are often failed colossally by society. Jared Loughner was a dangerous schizophrenic. Everybody knew it. They knew he was going to kill people some day. And they did nothing. Jared Loughner's brain was telling him in every way that his delusions were true. Not just giving him the ideas, but giving him the sensory information to back that up. Why would he question that? Would you? Would I? But there is a difference between him and the poor soldier. He had seen a mental health professional, who told him he was not well. He chose not to believe that. And his loved ones backed him up on that. So is Jared Loughner responsible for his actions? Yes he is. As are his family and friends, who in my mind bear equal responsibility because they essentially knew a bomb was going to go off, and told no one. Not even him.

                            Mental illness between onset and acceptance is a rough time. But once someone tells you that something is very wrong, you have an obligation to minimize the damage. You become responsible for your actions. Even if you don't really believe something is wrong, you have to respect another person's fear, or worry. You don't think your house is going to burn down, but you put up a smoke detector anyway. It's what responsible adults do. And yes, the stigma of mental illness is still terrible. Suck it up. We all have to.

                            So in brief, people who are ill and don't know it are not morally responsible for any crime they commit. And that window persists until someone tells them that something is wrong. At which point, you have been warned. If you choose not to heed that warning, it just like playing Russian roulette. You may firmly believe that it's going to come up on one of the five empty chambers, but you know damn well theres a possibility of getting the bullet.
                            Hello Errata,
                            Thank you so much for replying and for explaining it all to me. I understand now and agree with you.
                            Carol

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X