Did Jack kill more than three?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Vigilantee,

I see what you mean, but unfortunately you are quite wrong.
Yes, serial murderers generally need some kind of sociopathic traits - not the word 'generally' since there are (very few) exceptions, but it is very wrong indeed to claim that everyone who kills possesses psychopathic/sociopathic traits.
You can't, for example, argue that all domestic homicides are perpetrated by sociopaths because murders ate committed for a number of reasons and under very different circumstances. Many very serious domestic murders have been 'spur of the moment' things, unplanned, and perpetrated during a so called 'psychotic episode' under great psychological pressure. Very few of those killers would be considered psychopaths. In fact, many of them are suffering from temporary psychosis when the crime occurred.

All the best

[Vigilantee]

I disagree on just about everything you said actually, yes their were domestic murders and some were bloody, but we are not talking about domestic murders. You've just taken the Kelly killing out of the context of the Ripper murders and the very definite pattern it fits into and declared it a domestic killing. So ur not comparing like with like.

I doubt if you can generalise about any type of killing actually, they are all relatively unique, but have to be taken in context.

Yes, I know you would disagree (although I am discussing several points in my posts so it's hard to know what you disagree on and why) but that's because you haven't studied other murders committed before the Ripper scare enough, nor the press reports, to a necessary degree. You've simply made up your mind and chosen to get mislead by old myths instead of actaully studying the facts and consulting the sources.

All the best

[Vigilantee]

ok last point on psychology and abnormality, I 'm not naive enough to think we live in a perfect world in which normal people dont commit murder, but would argue about 80% of the population of Western 'Civilisation' are actually mentally abnormal due to the nature and effects of their disfunctional culture, so I would go beyond any narrow definitions of modern psychiatry on psychosis, which consists of many unconnected and complex forms of extreme mental malfunction, and include any socio-cognitive brain malfunction, including sociopathy or any lack of feeling or rationality, as insanity. But then of course there wouldnt be enough doctors to treat them, and thats why its not the current defintion!


But in everyday terms I dont see how anyone who kills people he doesn't know can be said not to be a sociopath by definition, unless they are delusional.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Yes, I know you would disagree (although I am discussing several points in my posts so it's hard to know what you disagree on and why) but that's because you haven't studied other murders committed before the Ripper scare enough, nor the press reports, to a necessary degree. You've simply made up your mind and chosen to get mislead by old myths instead of actaully studying the facts and consulting the sources.

All the best

[Vigilantee]

I disagree

Vigilantee,

Well, Dr X has already delivered a number of valid points, but let me add that serial killers who are paranoid schizofrenics or insane/delusional are quite rare in comparison. They do exist indeed (Richard Trenton Chase, Hadden Clark), but in most cases even some of those have to be looked upon carefully since they in addition display traits such as manipulation and cleverness in the same way we can expect from a psychopatchic offender.
This is often referred to as a "mixed" personality.

To argue that jack the Ripper was a sociopath is to go beyond what the evidence say and there is certainy no unanimous view on it - it is interesting to note that John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood from the FBI (among others) in fact 'diagnosed' the Ripper as a paranoid schizofrenic and 'disorganised' or possibly with 'mixed' character traits.

As for your views upon that the Kelly murder couldn't happen in a domestic environment in 1888, that is unfortunately a baseless assumption. It is a misconception that the years before the Ripper murders were lacking of unusually violent murders - a breif look at the news reports from the 1820s and forward clearly indicate that a number of very exceptional and brutal domestic homicides did happen - and that in London alone, and that in some cases not only included dismemeberment (which is more common in such a context) but also serious mutilation. And some of them did in fact get vast news coverage for its day.

The misconception that the Kelly murder appeared extraordinary for its time by people in those days is based on the newspapers, who made it appear as such in order to sell papers. But most importantly, we also have the context of the Ripper murders, where a serial killer has stirred up a whole community as well as the press - and such a situation, involving a notorious serial killer who got so great press PR - was unheard of before. At the time, there was great concern over that 'weak minds' would be affected and inspired by the news of the murders and the medical details.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

However, J.D.,
That is a bit of a myth, and we have cases like Hadden Clark to prove it. Hadden Clark was a disagnosed paranoid schizofrenic who managed to keep away from the law for years, cleaning up the crime scenes and even escape unseeen from the crime scenes (in one case dressed in the victim's female clothes).

It is a mistake to think that paranoid schizofrenics are dumbasses because they can certainly also display traits that are very rational in the middle of all irrationality - and as serial killers they have to or else they wouldn't manage to murder again and evade capture for so long.

Richard Trenton Chase is pretty much an exception, as he was completely delusional - with along history of menatl illness and drug abuse - and actually murdered a number of people in january 1978. However, due to his erratic behaviour and the large number of traces he left on the crime scenes, he was finally caught.But he can't be considered representative for those hard-to-catch serial killers who display paranoid schizofrenia, since they also possess rational traits. This is why they are referred to as 'mixed' character types.
Paranoid schizofrenics do NOT necessarily mean rambling lunatics like Kosminski or David Cohen.

As for myself, I don't have a clue about which type Jack the Ripper was, since I believe we simply have to little information, and psychology is complex even in modern cases.

However, I don't think we should turn this thread into a psychological debate thread - I believe there are other threads on that subject.

All the best

[Doctor X]

Schizophrenics, in the midst of their psychosis, tend to have a great deal of difficulty carrying out complex actions like escape. Psychosis is the inability to distinguish between the real and unreal despite clearly available evidence.

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Vigilantee,

Well, Dr X has already delivered a number of valid points, but let me add that serial killers who are paranoid schizofrenics or insane/delusional are quite rare in comparison. They do exist indeed (Richard Trenton Chase, Hadden Clark), but in most cases even some of those have to be looked upon carefully since they in addition display traits such as manipulation and cleverness in the same way we can expect from a psychopatchic offender.
This is often referred to as a "mixed" personality.

To argue that jack the Ripper was a sociopath is to go beyond what the evidence say and there is certainy no unanimous view on it - it is interesting to note that John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood from the FBI (among others) in fact 'diagnosed' the Ripper as a paranoid schizofrenic and 'disorganised' or possibly with 'mixed' character traits.

As for your views upon that the Kelly murder couldn't happen in a domestic environment in 1888, that is unfortunately a baseless assumption. It is a misconception that the years before the Ripper murders were lacking of unusually violent murders - a breif look at the news reports from the 1820s and forward clearly indicate that a number of very exceptional and brutal domestic homicides did happen - and that in London alone, and that in some cases not only included dismemeberment (which is more common in such a context) but also serious mutilation. And some of them did in fact get vast news coverage for its day.

The misconception that the Kelly murder appeared extraordinary for its time by people in those days is based on the newspapers, who made it appear as such in order to sell papers. But most importantly, we also have the context of the Ripper murders, where a serial killer has stirred up a whole community as well as the press - and such a situation, involving a notorious serial killer who got so great press PR - was unheard of before. At the time, there was great concern over that 'weak minds' would be affected and inspired by the news of the murders and the medical details.

All the best

[Doctor X]

More than you.

Wrong.

Its a basic fact.

Ipse dixit but incorrect.

Or unicorns

You made the claim. You failed.

Everything is speculation, facts are just speculation with prejudice

Ipse dixit but incorrect.

Its simple biology. I didnt even comment on Dr X's 'some are like this some are not' remark, we're either going to be scientific about this or we might as well just talk bull ****.

Whenever you wish to start being scientific, I am sure everyone will welcome it.

--J.D.

[Vigilantee]

Vigilantee, contextually I used the phrase "on what horrible means" to address the concept that was set-up in the paragraph prior, that suggested that the capability to commit horrible acts resides within many of us, despite the fact that most seem to assume onlyJack could do things like whats done to the Canonicals, ...but as is illustrated when considering that there are I believe 11 street-whore murders by knife in 1888-89, that is far from the reality.

Murder by knife is completely different to the kind of murders post Nichols, some may have even deserved it, and given Jacks six does this mean he did half of them or a third? Either way that makes him exceptional.

You mistook the analogy to be addressing provocation, such as survival, but I referred to the act...sawing a human foot off...something most would imagine they would be incapable of doing, particularly if their own.

You can't refer to anything out of context. Like most animals humans are perfectly peaceful creatures, except when hungry or competing for resources, or under threat of death, then they are capable of whatever it takes to live. Its simple biology. I didnt even comment on Dr X's 'some are like this some are not' remark, we're either going to be scientific about this or we might as well just talk bull ****.

[Vigilantee]

What does he know about psychiatry?

More than you.

First stated by Satz, and it was wrong then as it is now.

Its a basic fact.

There are some that would disagree with you on that; however, I will note that that does not make them "paranoid schizophrenics."

Or unicorns

You then provide a lot of speculations which, frankly, are just that.

Everything is speculation, facts are just speculation with prejudice

[Barksey]

Really? Damn! There goes my prime suspect:

And he's still better looking than some of the suspects

Wasn't there a thread about the number of victims somewhere around here?

Jen

Vigilantee, contextually I used the phrase "on what horrible means" to address the concept that was set-up in the paragraph prior, that suggested that the capability to commit horrible acts resides within many of us, despite the fact that most seem to assume onlyJack could do things like whats done to the Canonicals, ...but as is illustrated when considering that there are I believe 11 street-whore murders by knife in 1888-89, that is far from the reality.

You mistook the analogy to be addressing provocation, such as survival, but I referred to the act...sawing a human foot off...something most would imagine they would be incapable of doing, particularly if their own.

Im thinking you probably wouldnt realistically suggest anyone would see these murders in any different terms than horrible...so best not to type it. And using words like "delusional" or phrases like "sick in the head" when incorrectly interpreting a point made by someone isnt likely a great tact either.

Just sayin.

Cheers

[Doctor X]

Foucault is FAIL.

I don't think they have webbed feet or polydactyly either

Really? Damn! There goes my prime suspect:



From Cameras in Mitre Square

I mean . . . there have been no further Ripper murders since his death . . . explain that Ripperologists!!!1!!ELEVENTY!!!

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Barksey]

What does he know about psychiatry?

"Madness and Civilization", first published in French 1961 . Although Vigi is interpreting Foucault's theory of insanity a bit too liberally Foucault's main focus of attack is knowledge and metanarrative. Postmodernists, eh

First stated by Satz, and it was wrong then as it is now.

Yeah, it was a close thing tho...Szasz published 1960, Foucault the year after I also think that some of the things Szasz said needed saying at the time, much like Laing's work on the subject.


I would certainly agree with you that there's no indication that killers are paranoid schizophrenics. I don't think they have webbed feet or polydactyly either

Jen