Paranoid schizophrenic?

[Harry D]

When discussing suspects in the past who were diagnosed with psychotic disorders, I've noticed some posters aren't receptive to the idea that it fits the profile of the Ripper, either because someone with schizophrenia wouldn't have lasted two seconds before getting caught, or because schizos aren't generally dangerous to others.

Well, the other day I was reading up on the murderer Robert Napper. Some might remember that it was pretty high-profile case at the time. Robert Napper, diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, started out by sexually assaulting women in public parks in South-East London, and sometimes didn't care if the victim's children were in tow. Then he murdered Rachel Nickell in front of her young son on Wimbledon Common, stabbing her 49 times and mutilating the body.

His next victim was Samantha Bisset, a woman who he had been spying on. He attacked her in her own home, stabbing her in the chest and neck, killing her. Then he raped and suffocated her four year old daughter and left her for her dead in her bed. Napper returned to Samantha's body and dragged it into the living room to put in a sexually degrading pose. Taking the knife, he ripped the victim open and pulled back the ribcage to expose her organs which he then mutilated. Finally, he sliced off a part of her abdomen to take with him as a trophy.

Napper was charged with Samantha Bisset's murder only after a fingerprint was recovered from the scene of the crime. He was later interviewed in relation to Nickell's murder but denied any involvement. Napper was eventually charged after microscopic DNA taken from Nickell's body matched his profile. He was charged with manslaughter on grounds of 'diminished responsibility' and detained indefinitely at Broadmoor asylum.

http://murderpedia.org/male.N/n/napper-robert.htm

http://murderpedia.org/male.N/n/napper-robert-photos.htm

[John G]

I tend to regard JtR as a reasonably organized serial killer. Robert Napper, on the other hand, was highly disorganized. As the Green Chain Rapist, for example, he would simply enter women's houses when he noticed the door was unlocked- this is eerily reminiscent of Richard Chase, another highly disorganized, schizophrenic serial killer. He took no precautions, failing even to determine if his victims were alone, and he even ignored the presence of the victim's children. He also left forensic evidence, i.e. semen, everywhere. He also took no trophies, unlike JtR, which is also much more consistent with the profile of an organized killer, and after his first rape he confessed everything to his mother. She contacted the police, who incredibly took no action!

[Harry D]

I tend to regard JtR as a reasonably organized serial killer. Robert Napper, on the other hand, was highly disorganized. As the Green Chain Rapist, for example, he would simply enter women's houses when he noticed the door was unlocked- this is eerily reminiscent of Richard Chase, another highly disorganized, schizophrenic serial killer. He took no precautions, failing to determine if his victims were alone, and he even ignored the presence of the victim's children. He also left forensic evidence, i.e. semen, everywhere. He also took no trophies, unlike JtR, which is also much more consistent with the profile of an organized killer.

That last part is simply wrong, John. As I said in my opening post, Napper took a piece of Samantha Bisset's body with him after her murder.

Police had taken DNA evidence from one of the women raped by Napper. When a neighbour positively identified Napper as the man they were looking for they visited Napper and asked him to supply a blood sample at the police station. This happened twice and on both occasions Napper failed to show up. In a few weeks Napper was eliminated from the investigation because his height didn't match the witness description.

And like the Ripper, Napper also 'posed' his victim.

If 20th century policemen, with the benefit of forensic science, are still capable of such blatant negligence, then what chance did an inexperienced team of Victorian policemen have? For all we know the Ripper case could've been an open and shut one. There might have been a disturbed individual living in the area who was overlooked for any kind of reason.

[John G]

Hello Harry,

Yes, sorry, you're absolutely right about Samantha Bisset! I should have said that he took no trophies as a rapist. However, I still believe that JtR was a far more organized killer. For instance, he seemed to have the self restraint to attack his victims at planned locations, or at least he didn't assault his victims immediately. And, whereas Napper was simply a slasher JtR, in contrast, eviscerated Chapman and Eddowes with near surgical precision.

Moreover, JtR was able to kill his victims, eviscerate them, and make good his escape without attracting any attention to himself, despite the fact that his murders too place in very public locations. None of his victims were given the opportunity to cry out, possibly because he usually employed the strategy of suffocating them first, and he managed to avoid getting soaked in arterial spray, i.e. by cutting his victim's throats whist they were on or near to the ground.

[Errata]

When discussing suspects in the past who were diagnosed with psychotic disorders, I've noticed some posters aren't receptive to the idea that it fits the profile of the Ripper, either because someone with schizophrenia wouldn't have lasted two seconds before getting caught, or because schizos aren't generally dangerous to others.

Well, the other day I was reading up on the murderer Robert Napper. Some might remember that it was pretty high-profile case at the time. Robert Napper, diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, started out by sexually assaulting women in public parks in South-East London, and sometimes didn't care if the victim's children were in tow. Then he murdered Rachel Nickell in front of her young son on Wimbledon Common, stabbing her 49 times and mutilating the body.

His next victim was Samantha Bisset, a woman who he had been spying on. He attacked her in her own home, stabbing her in the chest and neck, killing her. Then he raped and suffocated her four year old daughter and left her for her dead in her bed. Napper returned to Samantha's body and dragged it into the living room to put in a sexually degrading pose. Taking the knife, he ripped the victim open and pulled back the ribcage to expose her organs which he then mutilated. Finally, he sliced off a part of her abdomen to take with him as a trophy.

Napper was charged with Samantha Bisset's murder only after a fingerprint was recovered from the scene of the crime. He was later interviewed in relation to Nickell's murder but denied any involvement. Napper was eventually charged after microscopic DNA taken from Nickell's body matched his profile. He was charged with manslaughter on grounds of 'diminished responsibility' and detained indefinitely at Broadmoor asylum.

http://murderpedia.org/male.N/n/napper-robert.htm

http://murderpedia.org/male.N/n/napp...ert-photos.htm

So I'm one of these people. And it is true that fewer schizophrenics are violent than non mentally ill people, so I always see it as a cheat frankly. I don't know why he did it he must have been crazy, and I've heard of schizophrenia and wikipedia doesn't say anything to the contrary.

And you know there are those people.

You know it's funny because Robert Napper really is an interesting case. And he has been diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia. And it fits. Delusions, ideations of persecution, persistent organization, sure. But it also doesn't fit at all. The awareness, the organization, the low profile, not very common in schizophrenic killers. And his brain was clean, and technically schizophrenia is a structural disease, and he had no structural damage. There is no doubt the guy is just gone. But he would not be diagnosed schizophrenic today. And Autistic people kill too. About as often as schizophrenics do. We associate autism with children so we don't like to think about it, but it's true. Those children grow up, and they don't get anymore empathy, anymore patience, anymore social responsibility then they had as cute kids. It's an all around tragedy, and when people can't see that, that bugs me. A lot. Schizophrenia is a catastrophic disease that essentially kills you 10-20 years before you die. Which will be about 7-10 years earlier than your peers. You turn 18 and your brain becomes a time bomb and no one knows why. But you will lose almost everyone you ever cared about because your brain turns you into a stranger and an exhausting job. It is more catastrophic than Alzheimers, and just as involuntary.

Of course there are schizophrenic killers, and I don't think any responsible adult would claim otherwise. The problem is that in general, they kill while in a frenzied state. And get caught pretty quickly. Schizophrenics who kill during a controlled state are really freaking rare. Single murders are usually the thing for Paranoid Schizophrenics, because they tend to isolate and protect themselves. And it is sadly a form of self defense when they kill. It's not fair, and it's not okay, but not for anyone. And people are terrified of people visibly mentally ill, because they are afraid this person is going to snap and kill them. Irony is, they've already snapped, you're looking at it, they aren't killing anyone. Statistically you are more likely to be killed in a road rage incident. You are far more likely to be killed by your spouse, so wave hello to the crazy man and keep an eye on your wife.

I don't think Jack was schizophrenic because I think these murders were clinical, triumphant even. And some schizophrenic delusions can sort of embrace the clinical theme, but you need to combine that with execution, and this is a problem. So we go back to schizophrenia being a catastrophic disease. It is cyclical, but not bound. Meaning it isn't like menstruation where it hits every 28 days. The delusions will come back, within a couple months of the last interval, but you get maybe a day's warning. And you have to learn that your body is giving you that warning and it takes time. Secondly, there are a lot of secondary symptoms of schizophrenia. By the time you are having lasting full time delusions, you have usually developed the shakes. Every schizophrenic develops a tremor. Some full blown tics. And frankly your memory blows. Like it's really bad. And these are earlier symptoms. These secondary symptoms preclude someone from being a successful serial killer. I mean You could hit someone with a rock. But surgery? Night impossible. Nowadays the fistfuls of pills schizophrenics take to control their disorder also control a lot of these secondary symptoms. But they didn't have medication back then. And given the onset age of this disease, with no treatment available, it seems astonishingly unlikely someone could pick up those kinds of knife skills with that kind of precision in the time between getting a job with a knife and onset. And after onset nobody gives you a knife. Without medication you are never so stable again that you can hold down a job.

I have to say, and this is going to sound bad, these murders make sense to me. Serial killer targeting prostitutes leaving gruesome bodies in full view, taking trophies... no part of this sounds new. I suppose it was new then, but this is sort of serial killer 101. None of it is illogical, none of it is crazy (barring the killing people part, but people do that). It was done with a certain amount of sophistication, and a great deal of skill for someone who wasn't say, a gynecological surgeon. This is not crazy guy stuff. This is elementary serial killer stuff. And I don't know why people keep trying to assign some sort of bizarre significance. I have absolutely no idea why people think an insane man has to be responsible. Perfectly sane men have done a lot worse, and frankly a lot weirder and more disgusting. Why does he have to be schizophrenic? Because you have to be crazy to kill? Obviously you don't have to be crazy to kill. Even to serially kill. Lots of examples of perfectly sane spoiled brats with a gruesome imagination. It's not to say there isn't something wrong with serial killers. There really really is. But it's not mental illness.

Why does it have to be a schizophrenic killer? To horn in some Jewish connection, or some Mason conspiracy? Why does he need to have been mentally ill to do this?

[Harry D]

Why does it have to be a schizophrenic killer? To horn in some Jewish connection, or some Mason conspiracy? Why does he need to have been mentally ill to do this?

Hello, Errata.

Nowhere did I say that the killer HAS to be schizophrenic, but imo it shouldn't be ruled out either. Napper wasn't caught in the act, nor did he crack under police questioning, he was found out by DNA profiling - something that the Victorian police didn't have the luxury of.

It's often remarked how the Ripper was as lucky as he was clever. I'd say that's an understatement because the Ripper had more than a few close calls. The Ripper was a major risk-taker. He's killing in the backstreets of an overcrowded district which is regularly patrolled by constables, or outside busy social clubs, or in a back-garden or a prostitute's hovel that could be opened from the outside. If the police timings are a little off, he's caught. If Albert Cadosch pops his head over the fence, he's seen. If anyone decides to visit Mary Kelly in the night, he's trapped.

I think the Ripper crimes bear the characteristics of a disorganized killer. An impulsive and opportunistic individual who didn't do much planning ahead of time. All he'd need to get away with it is a good knowledge of the local geography and luck on his side. Who's to argue that wasn't the case?

[J6123]

Once again Harry, I think you're spot on. Nobody organised or in their right mind would eviscerate prostitutes in public streets pretty much right under peoples noses. That said, I suppose you could argue that, because the streets were pitch black and there was no CCTV and police didn't have fingerprinting or DNA, that could have inspired an organised killer into riskier, more disorganised behaviour, but I would still favour a psychotic, disorganised loner who struck opportunistically and got very lucky. And the murders stopping suddenly after Mary Kelly, I think that suggests he gets banged up.

[John G]

I have to say I find this a very strange case. I mean, to begin with the profiler, despite being involved in the Green Chain Rapist, Plumstead Ripper and Rachel Nickell cases failed to realize the connection, i.e they were all carried out by the same killer-in fact, in a book he said they weren't connected! And initially a completely innocent man was investigated; a suspect the police attempted to entrap, with the aid of the same profiler! He was also questioned about the rapes but cleared. Moreover, after he was caught stalking a woman, the police found a pistol, two knives, a crossbow, ammunition, several maps with markings and notes on how to bind and restrain people. However, he was only charged with firearms offences and given just an 8 week sentence, despite a psychiatric report describing him as "without doubt an immediate threat to himself and the public".

And then there's the question of the degree of organization involved in these crimes. Thus, it has been argued that there's never been a validated case of a schizophrenic serial killer-Napper wasn't technically a serial killer, as he committed two murders- and on the face of it he does seem pretty disorganized: he left forensic tracers at his crimes and, as I noted in my earlier post, even confessed to his mother, who reported him to the Police, but they failed to act.

Now it's certainly true that there were numerous serious failings in the police inquiry, but even so it does seem strange that Napper was able to get away with possibly 106 rapes and other sexual offences, as well as 2 murders and a manslaughter, over a 16 year period.

And certain elements of his crimes do appear very well planned and organized: he plotted each attack so deliberately he marked each of them in an A-Z; he had medical notes on how to torture people and illustrations of the neck showing how human muscles work and interact; he even marked maps in the A-Z with black dots, highlighting locations for assaults and surveillance points where he could observe his intended victims without being seen.

Despite all of this he was diagnosed with Aspergers' syndrome and paranoid schizophrenia, as well as being defined as a sexual sadist.

It's all very perplexing.

[John G]

Hello, Errata.

Nowhere did I say that the killer HAS to be schizophrenic, but imo it shouldn't be ruled out either. Napper wasn't caught in the act, nor did he crack under police questioning, he was found out by DNA profiling - something that the Victorian police didn't have the luxury of.

It's often remarked how the Ripper was as lucky as he was clever. I'd say that's an understatement because the Ripper had more than a few close calls. The Ripper was a major risk-taker. He's killing in the backstreets of an overcrowded district which is regularly patrolled by constables, or outside busy social clubs, or in a back-garden or a prostitute's hovel that could be opened from the outside. If the police timings are a little off, he's caught. If Albert Cadosch pops his head over the fence, he's seen. If anyone decides to visit Mary Kelly in the night, he's trapped.

I think the Ripper crimes bear the characteristics of a disorganized killer. An impulsive and opportunistic individual who didn't do much planning ahead of time. All he'd need to get away with it is a good knowledge of the local geography and luck on his side. Who's to argue that wasn't the case?

Hi Harry,

But do you think that calculated risk taking was something that excited JtR? And could he have been playing a cat and mouse game with the police, revelling in the fact that he was able to repeatedly outwit them?

[Errata]

Hello, Errata.

Nowhere did I say that the killer HAS to be schizophrenic, but imo it shouldn't be ruled out either. Napper wasn't caught in the act, nor did he crack under police questioning, he was found out by DNA profiling - something that the Victorian police didn't have the luxury of.

It's often remarked how the Ripper was as lucky as he was clever. I'd say that's an understatement because the Ripper had more than a few close calls. The Ripper was a major risk-taker. He's killing in the backstreets of an overcrowded district which is regularly patrolled by constables, or outside busy social clubs, or in a back-garden or a prostitute's hovel that could be opened from the outside. If the police timings are a little off, he's caught. If Albert Cadosch pops his head over the fence, he's seen. If anyone decides to visit Mary Kelly in the night, he's trapped.

I think the Ripper crimes bear the characteristics of a disorganized killer. An impulsive and opportunistic individual who didn't do much planning ahead of time. All he'd need to get away with it is a good knowledge of the local geography and luck on his side. Who's to argue that wasn't the case?

Never accept what the articles tell you about a mental health diagnosis of a criminal. First of all, Gacy, Bundy Dahmer, all diagnosed schizophrenics, none were. It's popular with serial killers. Secondly, 73 ish % of people entering into a mental health care facility have a new diagnosis two weeks in. And that's just the first two weeks. A year out the percentage is in the high 80s. And it's because a lot of disorders cause the same symptoms. In fact if you go in ith full blown delusions, you are most likely to come out with a Bipolar diagnosis. Nobody can be diagnosed in three 1 hour sessions. Napper could either. Did you know that Napper apparently is not where he was assigned to be? He's in the research wing. Probably getting enough brain scans to drop a horse. Currently the biggest study going is developmental disorders and TBIs. So that's suggestive. And would make sense. Where his schizophrenia diagnosis does have that one major flaw.

And I think there are a lot of good reasons to rule it out. But you listed a bunch of qualities about Jack the Ripper, and none of them have anything to do with schizophrenics. They aren't symptoms of schizophrenia, they are not common traits of schizophrenics, they are not common behaviors of schizophrenia.

A killer with more brass than brain, may or may not have planned anything, extremely lucky... is it disorganized that makes you think Schizophrenia? Because it bears mentioning that organization or lack of has nothing to do with schizophrenia despite some outdated labels. The terms always referred to cognition, not behavior. I mean we cannot rule out schizophrenia any more than we can rule out a guy with a gluten allergy, because we really don't know anything at all. I'm just not sure why you are defending an arm chair diagnosis very few people on this board understand anything about. Do you know schizophrenics? Have met any? Are there any you would say "This guy can totally kill in an organized and almost precise way but without displaying any evidence of forethought?

I mean, I know a lot about mental illness, and I can only see a mentally ill suspect doing this is some extremely rare events. Not because they are "better than that" or whatever, but because if there is one single unifying factor in every mental health diagnosis known to man, they don't deal well with anxiety. And I can't really picture anything more anxiety producing than killing someone and trying to get away with it. Mentally ill people make great spree killers, terrible serial killers as a rule. Stress makes the mentally ill just fall apart. And I get it with certain suspects. You have to think schizophrenia or some other genesis of delusion if you are going to back Kosminsky. And you have to think mental illness if you are going to go with Levy. So I get that. But I don't understanding someone insisting on not just mental illness but a specific one when you don't have a horse in the race? If there is a mental illness, it' an invisible one, so its like betting that the guy was a redhead or something equally irrelevant. So why? And guaranteed that 90% of the time someone brings up a reason it HAD to be schizophrenia, that the reason it absolutely cannot be. Or what they are talking about has nothing to do with schizophrenia at all.

Are you even looking at other mental illnesses? Or physical ones?

[harry]

Just a question to those more involved in mental conditions than mysef,but would the medical term ALTERED STATE OF CONCIOUSNESS have any bearing on the rippers crimes.A condition that could be caused by a physical state.A condition where he knew what he was doing,but not why.

[John G]

Another interesting fact about Napper. He murdered Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common in broad daylight, stabbing her 49 times and slitting her throat, in front of her child, (an attack clearly reminiscent of the one on Tabram). The police said the assault would have lasted around 3 minutes. However, despite being drenched in blood, and the fact that there were dozens of people criss-crossing the common, including the wife of the police commissioner, he just walked calmly away and disappeared.

Whatever mental health condition he may or may not have had, I'm beginning to see close similarities between Napper and JtR. In fact, if the attack on the first victim was reminiscent of Tabram, the next victim he mutilated indoors, more reminiscent of Kelly. Just demonstrates how unpredictable these type of killers can be.

[lynn cates]

surgical precision

Hello John.

"JtR, in contrast, eviscerated Chapman and Eddowes with near surgical precision."

Well, Chapman, anyway.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Another interesting fact about Napper. He murdered Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common in broad daylight, stabbing her 49 times and slitting her throat, in front of her child, (an attack clearly reminiscent of the one on Tabram). The police said the assault would have lasted around 3 minutes. However, despite being drenched in blood, and the fact that there were dozens of people criss-crossing the common, including the wife of the police commissioner, he just walked calmly away and disappeared.

Good observation, John. Now if Napper had been running away, desperately looking over his shoulder, I think he would've attracted a damn sight more attention. But the fact he calmly, almost brazenly, walked away from the crime scene allowed him to avoid detection from other people in the park who were in their own little worlds. Of course he was a lucky bugger, as well. On another day he would've been spotted.

Same goes for the Ripper. There are alleged sightings of the murderer before the attacks but nothing afterwards. Like Napper, he could've been strolling home with his bloodstained jacket and no one paid any attention because under the cover of darkness he just looked like any other random Joe passing through Whitechapel. Not to mention the Ripper was operating in the early hours of the morning and not in the middle of the day, and if he was taking a shortcut home that would've also limited the amount of people he encountered. It sounds ridiculous that someone could get away with that, but you've proven that it can happen, and I'm sure Napper's case is far from the only example.

[Errata]

Just a question to those more involved in mental conditions than mysef,but would the medical term ALTERED STATE OF CONCIOUSNESS have any bearing on the rippers crimes.A condition that could be caused by a physical state.A condition where he knew what he was doing,but not why.

Nooot exactly. Well, and this isn't going to be a popular theory for a very good reason, but hypnosis is one of the only things that can do that to a moderately healthy person. No mental health diagnosis produces that condition, and some physiological states can mimic it without it being at all true. a person under hypnosis is told to say, cluck like a chicken. And they do it. Not because it's magic but because a hypnotic state does one thing really well, and that is make you amenable to requests. So you cluck like a chicken, you know you are doing it, and the only why is because the hypnotists asked you to. And because you are in an amenable state, that's enough for you. I don't think the killer was hypnotized. The amenable state only goes so far, and in all of human history no one has ever been hypnotized to kill someone successfully. And people have tried, because they are dumb.

Schizophrenics and anyone else experiencing a delusional state does know what they are doing. And they know why. If it's a ritual sacrifice, they can tell you what god they are sacrificing to, what the rules are, how they choose a sacrifice, I mean they have all of it. It's not going to make a lot of sense to us necessarily (though sometimes it really does make sense) but there is no question they cannot answer about the how and the why. Even when they are lucid they still have those memories, so once they become fully lucid they can access those memories, it just won't feel like it was them. It's where the whole split personality thing came from. And that doesn't exist, but any memory that you no longer have an emotional connection to feels just like remembering a tv show.

So there was this study, and it's a crap study because their conclusions were wrong but their numbers are right so I'll use those. They looked at 239 serial killer brains. 133 of them had clean brains. Which mean no neurological disorder, no developmental disorder, no AXIS 1 psych diagnosis, no physical damage. Which is a little creepy, but okay. 21% of them had suffered a head injury. More than half had experience a major stressor/trauma like childhood sexual abuse or physical abuse.

People think that psychiatric behavior is the biggest predictor of unusual behavior. And there's a reason for this. We see these guys on the streets, we know mentally ill people, we are mentally ill people. But we are finding increasingly that it's not. A lot of these crazy guys on the street have brain scarring that prevents their medication from working. And that can come from drug use, being electrocuted, but the most common reason is a head injury. Someone with a history of head injuries as child is more likely to become a serial killer than any studied group except white males. Number 1: White males Number 2: head injury. And we are really looking at multiple closed head injuries. Textbook injuries from child abuse. Now your skull is thicker as an adult so you can take more. But regardless of age, multiple head injuries change people.

I have had multiple head injuries (my parents are great, I just had a lot of trees to fall out of as a child). It not only changed my personality, it changed my Bipolar Disorder. And really it was the last one that did the most damage. And I don't even remember what happened, it might have been a sword hit. But at age 18 suddenly I was terrified of everything. And my meds stopped working, which was bad. This injury knocked out my manic episodes (so that was good, at least financially) gave me a raging anxiety disorder (very bad) and made me awkward. I couldn't really understand people anymore. I know my friends, I knew my family, their cues, but I couldn't figure out new people. Turns out the social feedback center of my brain got knocked out. The part of your brain that collects facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, and lets you know how you are doing in a social interaction is gone. Now this doesn't apply to reading, so I do fine here. But if you were to watch me meet my sister's mother in law, you would crawl with embarrassment. I can laugh about it. It's pretty bad.

So if I wasn't in therapy since, I don't know, birth this would be highly traumatic. Game changing traumatic. The only reason I'm not paranoid as hell is because I know why this is happening. I felt the mushy spot in my head. How many people don't know? What does it do to them to change suddenly, to lose perceptions they didn't even know they had. To lose emotions or interpretations because scar tissue is blocking it off. We know some people go psychotic. Or they get paranoid, or incredibly depressed. We know they start to isolate because they don't know whats happening. These are the TBIs we are treating in our soldiers. And soldiers are educated about TBI an they still lose it. It's not a self control thing, it's when your perception is suddenly telling you everything is wrong. And yes this causes people to kill. Chris Benoit was originally thought to have killed his family from 'roid rage, until they looked at his brain and saw that it resembled that of "an 85 year old Alzheimer patient." A brain that handles stress about as well as Chicken Little. And he planned those murders, at least by a few hours.

Head injuries and violent abuse and being a white guy. Statistically that's what we are looking for. Not a specific psychiatric diagnosis. Not even a kind of delusion or hallucination. Some kid got knocked around terribly, obviously was not treated, started isolating, started fixating on things. His cognitive skills were intact, his survival instinct was intact, he had no physical symptoms that prevented him from that kind of precise work. I could tell you what neurochemicals needed to be active to do this, I could tell you what barriers would have to be missing. And any brain damage right above the eye knocks out empathy. It's more a brain mapping exercise than a diagnosis. But I honestly think this is why Jack was so damaged. Not because of a disease, but because of abuse. And the physical manifestations of that abuse.