Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Lyn]

Apologies, my edit time has run out, but I should have said male Schizophrenics, rather than males when discussing sexual behaviour and building walls.

[Lyn]

Lyn,
Thanks for those gems.I suddenly got a glimpse of the reason for Aaron"s retreats to the comforts of his mother tongue when the going got rough.His so called "incoherence "was probably also an " extra wall" to stop intrusions from the outside world.

Thanks, Norma;

It's certainly not unusual for a sufferer to 'resume the language most familiar to them' suddenly, and for no apparent reason, particularly during times of stress. I tend to think myself that any sort of 'extra wall' is a means to stop intrusions from the 'outside world'. That can mean any number of things, from sexual behaviour, although it's usually more typical to 'go it alone' when really trying to build walls as I understand from males, to booze, drugs, music, Internet, television (of course, not in Aaron's case with those) food, shopping, planning... or mother tongue. Endless list, actually. As I said, I don't think Schizophrenia has changed over the Centuries. Anything that numbs or builds walls is sought, generally, when things feel rough. This being general Schizophrenia, not paranoid. It's my understand that paranoia is something that's triggered.

[Dan Norder]

RJ,

It never ceases to amaze me that you think you can BS your way through any criticism by making outrageously false claims and expect anyone to believe you.

If you want to talk academia, Timothy Riordan's credentials are impeccable. You have always freaked out on Wolf Vanderlinden, myself, and other people who poked holes in your wild theories, so you'll no doubt have an aneurysm when you see everything Tim's got.

Quite simply, it isn't even worth bothering to pay attention to the bizarre things you say to correct you, because the time when people might accidentally treat what you say seriously is over. I'm adding you to my ignore list so I won't even see your nonsense any more.

[Natalie Severn]

Lyn,
Thanks for those gems.I suddenly got a glimpse of the reason for Aaron"s retreats to the comforts of his mother tongue when the going got rough.His so called "incoherence "was probably also an " extra wall" to stop intrusions from the outside world.

[Cap'n Jack]

RJP, seeing you poked your nose in the door... question for you.
Seeing that not a single senior police officer had a clue up till 1890, but suddenly in 1891 they all thought they knew, do you feel - from a timeline point of view - that this sudden knowledge was provided by Kosminski, or Thomas Cutbush?

[rjpalmer]

sorry for the interuption, folks.

Time after time you claim it outdated [ie., the lustmord theory] but keep ignoring that it's definitely not. It's the current modern accepted understanding of serial killers. The things you claim about such killers, by contrast, seem like they were snatched right out of the 1700s. You're whole goal in looking at criminology and psychology seems to be to toss out anything that disagrees with your Ripper theory and grasp madly at any outdated or fringe idea ever spouted by anyone you can pretend knows something about the topic so that you can use it to try to justify the person you want to believe killed a bunch of prostitutes 120 years ago.

Often, when reading Dan Norder’s bizarre and angry commentaries, I am struck by a tone that borders on hysteria. A fellow that is not satisfied with merely being a second-rate thinker, but a very angry soul who actually works himself into a froth in order to champion second-rate thinking. I smell fear in that tone...and insecurity. Someday I'd like to make a study of the "rage of Ripperologists" and examine the motivations behind it. Norder seems to have it worst than most.


The reason I addressed myself to Martin Fido---and not you, Dan-- is quite simple. He’s actually read the authors I am referring to, and you haven’t. Hence your constant regurgitation of the outdated, simplistic psycho babble that you’ve gleaned from the internet, CSI:Miami, and other sources from pop culture.

And yes, folks, it’s complete hogwash to state that the current thinking among competent criminologists embraces the old Krafft-Ebing “lustmord” theory. Dan's insistence that is does merely shows that he is completely out of touch with academia.

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just aint so." -Mark Twain. I sometimes think that Twain must have read some of Norder’s posts.

But I’ll stop. I’ll save my comments for when--or if---I ever meet Martin Fido in person. It’s a conversation worth having...just not with Norder.

Don't try to use an Anderson thread to push more deceptive information concerning Tumblety.

Martin Fido brought up Tumblety...not me. I responded to Martin's comments, which, as far as I know, is the purpose of the forum. But besides that, are these your message boards Norder? Others have noticed your intense desire to lord over these forums. It must be extremely frustrating for you that so many people refuse to be bullied.

You see, unlike you, Dan, there are people who are insightful enough to realize that the police suspects can't be approached in isolation. The conversation branches out...and for good reason. Macnaghten, Anderson, Littlechild, Abberline, Reid, etc. It’s important to look at their opinions as a unified whole.

And the only thing "deceptive" is your own bad interpretations of the historical record. But I fear that you'll learn that more clearly, by and by.

But now let’s get back to Anderson and Kozminski, o.k.?

[Lyn]

Thank you for the welcome, Norma. Jeff coerced me, the rascal.

So maybe staff didnt think "self abuse" something that needed to be recorded,but rather formed part and parcel of other narcissistic pursuits.But as Robert said,maybe it had been simply a form of "stress relief" for Aaron when he was at home.

I'd go with the latter, Norma. What Robert suggested. It's my understanding, well, from what I've learned from male Schizophrenics, that "stress relief" in that way is quite common. But it's more comfortable in a home environment -- or rather, 'where one feels most comfortable' I'm told. I don't think Schizophrenia has changed over Centuries.

We know for a fact that Aaron's illness continued for many years yet and it struck at various times,one such time he was admitted to Mile End for a few days in 1890 for example,and then again some months later it seems to have struck again when he was admitted to Colney Hatch.

Schizophrenia does 'strike at various times'. See below:

In fact there are clearly a number of periods of calm lucidity,together with cooperative behaviour and responses in English to various everyday questions,throughout his three year stay at Colney Hatch as well as at Leavesdon----only less often by then.

A Schizophrenic often has a number of periods of lucidity, more than perhaps realised. The tricky thing with Schizophrenia is that no one knows when 'episodes' will strike, particularly not the sufferer. Which is debilitating and as confusing for the sufferer as the family, perhaps more so for the family, but then the sufferer often has cognition of an episode which usually causes severe depression. Thus the cycle goes on and on..

It sounds like Aaron often obstinately refused to participate in much of this, especially work often apparently preferring to stay in his own world of hallucinations and monologues with himself in Yiddish .

The world of the Schizophrenic is a crazy and confusing one, where it's often just easier to simply stay in one's own world. Interaction with others is too often just too difficult. And working with others can be a nightmare that is unimaginable to those who aren't Schizophrenic. That can be a red flag, when individual sufferers go too far inward. As in Cho, (Virginia) although note that Cho went 'postal' rather than seek out victims over a period of weeks. But then, he had access to a quicker method. And also note that Schizophrenics are all individuals, so mileage varies.

[Chris]

I remember reading - but cannot remember where - that Leavesden did indeed have some dangerous inmates. Similarly, I think there were some people at Broadmoor whose only crime was embezzlement or other non-violent offences.

I think it certainly wasn't meant to have dangerous inmates, though I suppose they were only human and made mistakes like anyone else.

Below is an extract from a book entitled "The Charities Register and Digest", published in 1890, available at Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=IvETAAAAIAAJ (those outside the USA may need to use a proxy server such as https://proxify.com/), which includes a useful outline of the law of the time concerning lunatics and imbeciles.

[Natalie Severn]

AP before I go over to Leavesdon site just to say thanks for such a superb find.That is a really good example of how Leavesdon operated its progressive policy.Pity the chap absconded!

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Ap.Well that is what I would have thought was the case,although given the people there were sometimes suffering from schizophrenia ,then developments could have happened that led to an occasional outbreak of violence.I remember when my mother was working in the Art Dept of a big psychiatric hospital she told me about two chaps with obsessional compulsive disorder being placed in beds that were side by side.This led to a violent incident when both needed to get out of bed at the same time, one on the left hand side and the other on the right ,whereupon they bumped bums rather painfully which in turn led to a really nasty fight.
But Robert,I am surprised about Broadmoor.I know it too used to have a fairly liberal regime,with the patients having a nice lounge to sit in ,various activities laid on to involve themselves in such as whist and bridge, that some put on plays for an audience etc but as I understood it nearly all patients had a history of serious mental illness usually involving violence.You mention embezzlement and this is often part of a psychopaths CV, so if psychopathy was diagnosed-whatever that was called in 1888, then a psychopath could indeed have found themselves inside Broadmoor even though their offence was only "embezzlement" ,nevertheless doctors could have assessed the person as likely to create mayhem at large in society --- possibly as ruthless con-artists etc.Must go and look up Leavesdon!

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm quite sure that Leavesden did have some dangerous patients, Robert, but perhaps more dangerous to themselves rather than society at large?
And I say that because of the 'open door' policy they employed to the majority of their inmates, as highlighted by the exchange of letters in the Daily Telegraph in 1888:
'
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE DAILY TELEGRAPH."

SIR - I am requested by the committee of the Leavesden Asylum to advert to the letter signed "X" in your issue of this date, respecting the escape of a patient from this asylum some twelve months ago, and to forward you the following certificate respecting the condition of the patient prior to and at the time of his escape from the asylum.




Oct. 3, 1888.

"The patient who escaped from this institution whilst out with a walking party on Sept. 16, 1887, was, during his residence here, perfectly quiet and harmless, and certainly had no homicidal tendency. - H. CASE, Medical Superintendent."

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,


JOHN BELL SEDGWICK,
Chairman of the Leavesden Asylum Committee.
Leavesden Asylum, near Watford, Herts, Oct. 3.'

[Robert]

Hi AP

I remember reading - but cannot remember where - that Leavesden did indeed have some dangerous inmates. Similarly, I think there were some people at Broadmoor whose only crime was embezzlement or other non-violent offences.

[Cap'n Jack]

'asylum for "quiet and harmless imbeciles" at Leavesden to serve the north of the capital.'

Now that, Natalie, is from the official Workhouse website.
So if Aaron was really a dangerous maniac capable of murdering five or more women, then what the devil was he doing at an asylum for 'quiet and harmless imbeciles'?

[Robert]

Hi Chris

I think that Aaron was the man suspected, but I'm just wondering how accurate the info supplied to the doctors about these symptoms - self-abuse, eating from gutters - actually was. Still, if it was indeed accurate, then it seems to me to suggest that Aaron was highly suspicious, both of his family and of the world in general. Despite his reluctance to wash, there's a hint of a health fetish - "Is the food poisoned? Will I catch something if I go with a woman?" - and this doesn't go easily with plunging one's hands into a woman's abdomen. As you say, he doesn't seem a particularly good suspect, so we're thrown back on Macnaghten, Swanson and Anderson.

[Natalie Severn]

Welcome Lyn! Hi All,
Yes Chris,Robert has correctly pointed out that despite Jacob Cohen"s comments,no medical note refers to Aaron masturbating, apart from where they are recording what Cohen said in his admission notes.The fact that this activity isnt mentioned later ,could be because the staff at Colney Hatch were somewhat enlightened and guided by ground breaking and progressive doctors with regards to mental illness .We know Doctor Joseph Conolly pioneered progressive policies at Colney Hatch and St Bernard"s Hanwell from the 1850"s onwards. So maybe staff didnt think "self abuse" something that needed to be recorded,but rather formed part and parcel of other narcissistic pursuits.But as Robert said,maybe it had been simply a form of "stress relief" for Aaron when he was at home,-some respite from having to endlessly argue his corner with his relatives.
I agree Chris, that the fact that the admission notes record his "self abuse" strengthens the possibility that it is Aaron that Swanson and Macnaghten are referring to.
Regarding Aaron and the dog he took for walks-a dog he must have at least "got on with" because Aaron ,we know, could not be forced to do anything he didnt want to do and taking out a dog he didnt like would have been a very unlikely event in my opinion.But Lyn is right,I was trying to emphasise that Aaron was certainly not in the final stages of his illness, or a "burnt out" schizophrenic in November 1889 when he was walking the dog in Cheapside.This being a full year after the murders had stopped and Mary Kelly had been found in such a horrific state of mutilation.We know for a fact that Aaron's illness continued for many years yet and it struck at various times,one such time he was admitted to Mile End for a few days in 1890 for example,and then again some months later it seems to have struck again when he was admitted to Colney Hatch.Clearly,when he was admitted in 1891, his illness had not reached the final stages of dementia by any means.In fact there are clearly a number of periods of calm lucidity,together with cooperative behaviour and responses in English to various everyday questions,throughout his three year stay at Colney Hatch as well as at Leavesdon----only less often by then.We have a record of this having happened some time after he was transferred to Leavesdon in 1894 and before 1914 when his condition had deteriorated significantly and he hallucinating visually and aurally. It may be worth noting that Colney Hatch was like a small town with farms,some small industries ,a laundry,shops,occupational therapy areas etc where patients were expected to pull their weight and work as well as join in theatre activities and picnics during leisure time.This activity and work therapy Doctors were trying to introduce was hoped to break the patients from their delusions and " fantasy states" and help bring them back to states of reality. It sounds like Aaron often obstinately refused to participate in much of this ,especially work often apparently preferring to stay in his own world of hallucinations and monologues with himself in Yiddish .