Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[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Time after time you claim it outdated [ie., the lustmord theory] but keep ignoring that it's definitely not.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and psychology seems to be to toss out anything that disagrees with your Ripper theory and grasp madly at any outdated or fringe idea ever spouted by anyone you can pretend knows something about the topic so that you can use it to try to justify the person you want to believe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 He’s actually read the authors I am referring to, and you haven’t. Hence your constant regurgitation of the outdated, simplistic psycho babble that you’ve gleaned from the internet, CSI:Miami, and other sources from pop culture.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.?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Lyn,
Again,I find your information really helpful.I will respond more fully later when
I have had time to mull over the hospital notes on Kosminski again.I think I remember he took to using his mother tongue when he was going through an unsettled and excitable phase.
Best Wishes
Norma

[rjpalmer]

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?

APW - I don’t agree that the extant historical record reflects that ‘not a senior police office had a clue up till 1890.’ I thought I already made that clear.

To the contrary, what I think it really reflects is that Anderson, Swanson, and Macnaghten used the investigations of 1890/1891 to revise and rewrite the history of what happened in 1888...and it doesn’t fly.

It’s pretty obvious, for instance, that they tried their damnest to fix-up Sadler for the 1888 crimes, but failed because he was out of the country. And since there was no way in heck that forensic evidence could link Kozminski, Sadler, or Cutbush to the events of 1888, in trying to pin the crimes on those blokes they were, at best, engaging in retrospective thinking and speculation. Druitt is a more complex problem, but I think Mr. Ruffels is spot on: the chief purpose of Anderson and Macnaghten was to engage in apologetics.

O, and now that Norder has rushed off in a pompous huff at the ‘wild’ and ‘outrageous’ fact that someone would dare challenge the lustmord dogma, the brandy is on me. I think I’ll start a new thread in to toast his highness.

RP

[Jeff Leahy]

Mad Week

Hi Everyone

This is just a very quick post to welcome Lyn aboard and thank her for advice etc, over the last few months. I have started a post at some length over the last three days but matters arising keep taking over on other threads/research, and I cant get it right. Need a little time.

I am taking everything on board. I trust you will bear with me while I get things together.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

RJ,

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.

I'm off to bed now, but you've got to love this man, havnt you? I wonder just how many people he will have on his 'ignore' list before he wakes up one morning and realizes that no one gives a damn what he thinks and he's completely isolated.

'THE NORDER', Captain Mannering, Truely bizarre

Pirate

[Monty]

Point of fact

Aplogies if this has been mentioned.

A witness summons may be granted by a Justice on an oath or affirmation that the person concerned is likely to give material evidence and will not voluntarily appear to be examined as a witness in the case (SJ Act, 1848 s.7 and Indictable Offences Act 1848 s.16)

Failing to attend or refuses to answer questions may result in a prison comittal up to 7 days, as per the SJ Act 1848 s.7 & IO Act 1848 s.16.

This is in relation to Andersons witness.

Basically the refusal to give evidence is tosh.

Monty
l

[Natalie Severn]

Point noted.Thanks for that Monty.
Nats
x

[Jeff Leahy]

Point like he’d be willing to face seven days in jail

Hardly a deterrent

Pirate

[Monty]

1888 prison aint no 2009 holiday camp prison Jeff.

Besides, you missed the point.

Monty

[Howard Brown]

Neil and Jeff:

No doubt that the prison system in 1888 was different than in 2009...but even less likely reasons for someone being willing to go to jail in this case are...

1. Notoriety for being the man who refused to identify JTR. I can easily envision the jailer making a point of letting the other inmates know why this reluctant witness was in there with them. By the way, lights out at 10,Mr. Lawende.......and all us guards go home at 11....pleasant dreams.

2. Damage to one's reputation, if said witness had one worth praservin'...and Mr. Lawende seemed to be such a mensch... worthy of respect.

I don't see any way someone would take an idealistic bullet like these two above for someone.... who the public...and the witness himself... did not know back in 1888 apparently focused on prostitutes or women out and about at those hours, if not specifically prosses. At the time, every woman was under threat.