Recognition

[Henry Flower]

"So what could the reasons have been for him to take such a high risk?"

Er... he didn't. You seem to have misunderstood.

[David Orsam]

It is not an agenda, since I can not get rid of sources I would like to get rid of. I try but there is no way.

You actually seem to be confirming the point that Henry made, namely that, when you post, you have in mind "sources" that you never mention, which are shaping your views in one direction (albeit that you pretend that your views are formed scientifically without any bias) so that it is fair to say that you have a hidden agenda.

[DJA]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384517]

Hi,

Yes, I basically agree with you on all of the above.

Regards, Pierre

Apart from police,who frequented Mitre Square around 1.30am on a Sunday morning?

Kindly supply sources!

[Henry Flower]

"It is not an agenda, since I can not get rid of sources I would like to get rid of. I try but there is no way. And I do not understand what you mean by fishing expeditions."

Ah the classic Pierre playbook: (1) announce that you think you have found him but your ethics prohibit you from from naming him until your research is conclusively concluded. (2) remind everyone constantly that you are a robot of pure logic and ethics, that you are a completely objective processor of source material and data. (3) Instead of stating anything testable, limit yourself to asking generic questions, then telling others that their answers to those questions fail the test of your computer-like adherence to data.

No offence but the whole schtick is getting a little tiresome.

[Pierre]

"It is not an agenda, since I can not get rid of sources I would like to get rid of. I try but there is no way. And I do not understand what you mean by fishing expeditions."

Ah the classic Pierre playbook: (1) announce that you think you have found him but your ethics prohibit you from from naming him until your research is conclusively concluded. (2) remind everyone constantly that you are a robot of pure logic and ethics, that you are a completely objective processor of source material and data. (3) Instead of stating anything testable, limit yourself to asking generic questions, then telling others that their answers to those questions fail the test of your computer-like adherence to data.

No offence but the whole schtick is getting a little tiresome.

Hi Henry,

I understand how you think. And I agree with you on some of it, but I am not objective, no one is. Even mathematics is highly objectivated by objectivating subject, so objectivity is really difficult from many perspectives. One must always perform a reflexive self analysis.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=DJA;384524]

Apart from police,who frequented Mitre Square around 1.30am on a Sunday morning?

Kindly supply sources!

DJA, I will, in the future.

Regards, Pierre

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi,

But the problem is that there is no evidence for a "mental illness scenario". That scenario is a theoretical construction based either on hypotheses about some persons having been placed in asylums and therefore hypothesized as having been Jack the Ripper - a tautological theory, which per se is no problem, sometimes events in the past can be tautological - or on a general idea that a serial killer must be mad.

Even if some persons were living in asylums, there was never any evidence for those persons having been at any of the murder sites.

And even if serial murderers today sometimes get a psychiatric diagnosis, there is no evidence of such a person having been at any of the murder sites in 1888-1889.

And whether one scenario is likely or not is something that you as a subject feel, probably on the basis of the above. But the feeling of subjects is no evidence for someone being a serial killer.

I am not merely trying to contradict you, just trying to make things clear from a historical point of view.

Kind regards, Pierre

Of course there is. Of course there is.

There are decades and decades of research, and medical imaging, and Police evidence, and inquests, and public inquiries, and endless anecdotal evidence from family, friends and neighbours of killers and violent offenders.

Protocols from medical professionals that have been written for dealing with mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, protocols that have been written after years and years of experience of dealing with psychologically disordered patients.

Websites created just to host publicly accessible documentation showing long term engagement between violent offenders and the mental health services.

I do not give two hoots about who was placed in an asylum in 1888. I care about the fact that everything that I know about violent offenders comes from what we have learned in the years since 1888. What the combined knowledge of all of those professionals, over all those years, tells me is that there is a very high possibility that JtR was suffering from some kind of mental illness. It may have been permanent, it may have been temporary. He may have been as sane as the next man. he may have been in an asylum, he may have been in a prison, he may have been in neither.

You can't tell me that there is no evidence that there was a person who would have received 'such a diagnosis' in 2016, at the SOC in 1888. You don't know that. You do not have access to their medical history, you do not have access to their social history. Most of it has been lost. We are effectively starting at zero.

I can say that he was statistically likely to have suffered from mental illness at some point, however. Personally, I find that considerably more probable than some convoluted Police conspiracy.

[Geddy2112]

But the problem is that there is no evidence for a "mental illness scenario".

Is this the work of a sane person?

[MsWeatherwax]

Is this the work of a sane person?

For the sake of objectivity Geddy, I'll say it's possible that whoever murdered MJK was attempting to obscure her identity and that's the reason for the apparent overkill.

While I'm open to the possibility, I (personally) think it's more likely that whoever committed the murder was experiencing a psychotic episode.

Saying this does not rule out any particular suspect - we're bad enough at identifying mental illness now, we were understandably terrible back then. There are certainly documented cases of apparently stable people who go on to commit incredibly violent crimes after suffering sudden onset acute mental illness.

[Fisherman]

Is this the work of a sane person?

Is any murder the work of a sane person? How do we define sanity in this context? Is the killer who cuts more times less sane than the one who cuts less times? Can you cut a throat and be sane but not cut an abdomen open and be sane?

These are impossible questions to answer, the way I see it. My own take on things is that the killer of Mary Kelly was methodical and worked to an agenda. To me, it is not a deed with random cutting and annihilation, the way it is often described.

Andersons´words spring to mind here, of course: "It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man they were those of a maniac revelling in blood."

Actually, I think that the killer tried to avoid blood if he could; the neck-cutting was seemingly there to bleed the victims. And in the torso series, it would seem that the 1873 victim was hung up and drained of blood totally. Of course, in a sense this man must have been a "maniac" - but not a drooling, disorganized idiot. Instead he seems to have been very aware of what he did, quick, efficient, careful and systematic.

[Abby Normal]

Is any murder the work of a sane person? How do we define sanity in this context? Is the killer who cuts more times less sane than the one who cuts less times? Can you cut a throat and be sane but not cut an abdomen open and be sane?

These are impossible questions to answer, the way I see it. My own take on things is that the killer of Mary Kelly was methodical and worked to an agenda. To me, it is not a deed with random cutting and annihilation, the way it is often described.

agree. The ripper was not overtly insane. he knew what he wanted to do and what turned him on and he was methodical in his plan to get the victims where he wanted them. I would say he was fascinated with what his knife could do to the female body with specific interest in the internal organs to take away to relive/prolong his sick fantasy.

[MsWeatherwax]

Actually, I think that the killer tried to avoid blood if he could; the neck-cutting was seemingly there to bleed the victims. And in the torso series, it would seem that the 1873 victim was hung up and drained of blood totally. Of course, in a sense this man must have been a "maniac" - but not a drooling, disorganized idiot. Instead he seems to have been very aware of what he did, quick, efficient, careful and systematic.

Hi Fisherman.

I'm not suggesting that he was 'mad' in the cartoon sense of the word. It's entirely possible for an individual to have acute psychotic episodes but appear outwardly 'sane' the rest of the time. If I had time, I could point you towards (admittedly modern) examples of people who have convinced experienced medical personnel that they are perfectly safe, only to go on and commit brutal violence and/or murders.

I feel like too much weight is placed on him needing to be 'sane' to be organised and methodical.

The only reason I place any emphasis on his mental state is that if a decent suspect is identified through research or new discoveries, they could possibly be given weight by identifying risk factors for mental illnesses that have resulted in similar crimes.

I know you have a favoured suspect, Fish - I'm not attempting to discount or lend weight to him (I don't know enough about him, for a start). I'm simply trying to suggest that we know so much more about mental illness now that it could be a useful tool to support a good hypothesis.

[Pierre]

Is this the work of a sane person?

But that variable or characteristic is no good for finding the killer. That is my point.

And as you see, from all the posters who have commented on your question here, it is a very problematic concept as well. So even if we thought we had a valid definition based on reliable data, the definition would not help us find the killer, since the past is not present.

All we have is sources left to us from the past. We could start to search among all the sources we can find from 1888-1889 giving some data for people considered to be "mad" or "lunatics" in their time.

But if the police and the justice system did not manage to find the "mad" serial killer then, when they had the opportunity to investigate them in real life, why would we?

It is actually 100 percent impossible to start off with one definition like that, if we would try and find the killer using it, since it would obscure thinking and make us discard important sources. We would only be looking for a person who was described as mad or a lunatic, and the rest would be forgotten.

It is much better to follow the sources and to do it with a big question mark before our eyes.

All this said, I am absolutely convinced that Jack the Ripper had some psychological problems connected to, and generating, other problems in his life, problems he could not handle.

But lunacy or "mental illness" as a variable was no good as a torch in the dark in 1888, since it did not help them to find him and it is no good now.

If he had problems and committed murders, he would have known how to hide his problems to society. He managed to get away with murder, didn´t he?

Regards, Pierre

[Geddy2112]

But that variable or characteristic is no good for finding the killer. That is my point.

And as you see, from all the posters who have commented on your question here, it is a very problematic concept as well. So even if we thought we had a valid definition based on reliable data, the definition would not help us find the killer, since the past is not present.

All we have is sources left to us from the past. We could start to search among all the sources we can find from 1888-1889 giving some data for people considered to be "mad" or "lunatics" in their time.

But if the police and the justice system did not manage to find the "mad" serial killer then, when they had the opportunity to investigate them in real life, why would we?

It is actually 100 percent impossible to start off with one definition like that, if we would try and find the killer using it, since it would obscure thinking and make us discard important sources. We would only be looking for a person who was described as mad or a lunatic, and the rest would be forgotten.

It is much better to follow the sources and to do it with a big question mark before our eyes.

All this said, I am absolutely convinced that Jack the Ripper had some psychological problems connected to, and generating, other problems in his life, problems he could not handle.

But lunacy or "mental illness" as a variable was no good as a torch in the dark in 1888, since it did not help them to find him and it is no good now.

My point was to answer your position of - 'is no evidence for a "mental illness scenario".'

We do not need data, we do not need sources and we do not need asylum records. It is plain to see that anyone who butchered someone in the fashion that they did to MJK was how can I put it in lay mans terms... 'not quite right upstairs.' That is all the 'evidence' you need. I would state with some certainty that most people would agree with me in stating whoever killed MJK in that fashion had 'mental' issues. The problem maybe is how you define those issues. You however made the sweeping statement there was no evidence for mental illness, in my opinion and others the manor of the murder of MJK would suggest there was.

If he had problems and committed murders, he would have known how to hide his problems to society. He managed to get away with murder, didn´t he?

Those 'skills' of hiding mental issues does not automatically mean he did not have any. It is quite possible to be fine one moment then 'crazy' the next...
Although according to some maybe he did not get away with murder as such, maybe it was just for instance covered up by the Police...

[Fisherman]

MsWeatherwax: Hi Fisherman.

Hi Ms W!

I'm not suggesting that he was 'mad' in the cartoon sense of the word.

I was actually commenting on Geddy´s suggestion that the killer must have been mad. I know that you apply a less narrow approach!

It's entirely possible for an individual to have acute psychotic episodes but appear outwardly 'sane' the rest of the time. If I had time, I could point you towards (admittedly modern) examples of people who have convinced experienced medical personnel that they are perfectly safe, only to go on and commit brutal violence and/or murders.

I know, Ms W. Personally, I don´t think we are looking at a collection of psychotic deeds, but I can see the logic in the suggestion.

I feel like too much weight is placed on him needing to be 'sane' to be organised and methodical.

Perhaps so. Psychotics can act methodically during a seizure, I know that. And I know that they can repeat things during psychosis. It´s just that I think there are things pointing to something else than a psychotic killer. What I am to call the mindset, though, I have no idea.

The only reason I place any emphasis on his mental state is that if a decent suspect is identified through research or new discoveries, they could possibly be given weight by identifying risk factors for mental illnesses that have resulted in similar crimes.

The problem being that mentally affected people can seem to be perfectly normal on the surface!

I know you have a favoured suspect, Fish - I'm not attempting to discount or lend weight to him (I don't know enough about him, for a start). I'm simply trying to suggest that we know so much more about mental illness now that it could be a useful tool to support a good hypothesis.

If it was Lechmere, as I believe, then he was something more than a family father and a faithful worker. I take comfort in my knowledge that many serialists have worked under this exact guise. We are too far removed in time for the living relatives of Charles Lechmere to know what he was about. And even if we were not, it still applies that he could have presented two totally different characters in different situations. Gary Ridgway was the best man Mrs Ridgway had ever come across, Peter Kürten was a gentle, polite and respectful man in the eyes of his wife and Dennis Rader was a slightly annoying man with a great interest in law and order.