Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?.

[c.d.]

Hello Franko,

If you say it is improbable that Chapman was the Ripper, I have no problem with that. If I had to bet my life on it, I would say he was probably not the Ripper. All I have been attempting to say is that it is possible that he could have switched to poison. That's it.

c.d.

[FrankO]

Hi c.d.,

Then we can at least see eye to eye on the first and most important part. That's good enough for me.

Now I'm off to bed.

Cheers,
Frank

[Natalie Severn]

Psychotics may or may not have a choice. It depends on why they are psychotic. And psychotic is not a disease. It's a condition caused by any number of factors. Delusions are logical in their own weird way. Especially paranoid delusions. They are almost coping mechanisms for the manufactured sensory input their brain is feeding them. Paranoid schizophrenia is a little like MadLibs. Your brain tells you that you are hearing a voice, so naturally you believe it. And it's a female voice. But clearly no one else is hearing it. And there has to be an explanation. So if a divine being was speaking to you, no one else would hear it. And since it's female, it has to be the Virgin Mary. And that is the basis of the delusion. Since she isn't talking to you because she is bored, the delusion fills in the why. And then it fills in the conversation.

People who are being spied on by the CIA through the fillings in their teeth don't start out that way. They just hear something. And they can't really tell what it is. And it's because their brain is structurally failing, and their audio recognition center is sparking off for no good reason. There is no actual input. But the worse the condition gets, the more detailed the delusion. The brain is essentially lying it's pants off to keep from getting found out. Someone like me will never have the CIA delusion. I'm not into conspiracies. Never have been. I am much more likely to have a divinity inspired delusion, because I am a person of faith, and I have had relationship problems with my divinity of choice. Aliens are right out. I am absolutely convinced they have better things to do.

The personality and the proclivities of a schizophrenic decide the delusion. If they are afraid, it is a scary delusion. If they feel grandiose, it's a heroic delusion. But the delusion always attempts to cope with the trials at hand. It's why schizophrenics can be shifted off a delusion. It takes a long time, but a man who thinks he is Superman can be persuaded that he is in fact Henry V. Both characters serve the heroic delusion, but Henry V doesn't try to jump off the roof once a week.

Yes,I too know something about schizophrenic behaviour as I worked with people who had paranoid schizophrenia and had suffered breakdowns.This was in the Art therapy dept of a large psychiatric hospital for a while on an extended study early on to do with my Dip Ed.My mother was an Art Therapist in the hospital and was able to discuss some aspects of the case histories with me.What you say tallies---the delusion can sometimes be broken by straight talking too --not pandering to the fantasy.
But if you have ever witnessed a violent psychotic episode you will know that the person really has no control at all over their behaviour---they rant and rave and need to be put in a padded cell with restraints---it still sometimes happens when, for example ,people come off their anti psychotic drugs by accident or design.Are you saying they still retain the ability to make choices about their actions at this stage of the episode?If not at what point on the continuum would you say choice ceases-as an option?
You are no hack Errata and thanks for the discussion!
Cheers
Norma

[Errata]

But if you have ever witnessed a violent psychotic episode you will know that the person really has no control at all over their behaviour---they rant and rave and need to be put in a padded cell with restraints---it still sometimes happens when, for example ,people come off their anti psychotic drugs by accident or design.Are you saying they still retain the ability to make choices about their actions at this stage of the episode?If not at what point on the continuum would you say choice ceases-as an option?
You are no hack Errata and thanks for the discussion!
Cheers
Norma

This is where I'm a bad person to ask. I am Bipolar, and I have major panic attacks. I know what it's like to feel trapped in my own body while it shakes or thrashes around. But I also know that a great deal of it is a physiological response to emotional stimuli. My gut is to relate a violent psychotic episode to my panic attacks, which are evidently not the normal variety. For me, I don't have palpitations, or a fight or flight response. I lose control of my limbs, rapidly become dehydrated, and because of dehydration have a semi-controlled seizure. And if I get dehydrated another way, same thing happens, only the emotion of panic doesn't show up until mid episode. I have a lesion in my brain that irritates the unconscious motion part of the brain when I dehydrate.

Schizophrenia is also a very physical disease. It's not just dopamine going haywire, it's the structure of the brain breaking down. I have noticed that in the schizophrenic people I know, that physical agitation precedes emotional agitation. I don't know what it means. I suspect, given the level of damage already done to the people I know that they are getting physical discomfort signals first. Knee jiggling, tapping fingers, pacing, chafing their arms like they are cold, stretching like an arm aches. They get the emotional discomfort ones later. It reminds me of when I dehydrate and then have a panic attack. The cleared paths in my brain connect the two sensations. And it doesn't matter which comes first, the other will follow. And I always thought it was completely out of my control. But it turns out specific therapies exist for the sole purpose of divorcing physical sensation from emotional reaction. It's a part of pain management.

Do I think these people want to have a violent psychotic break? No, I don't. Do I think they have control? I rather suspect a few do, but I would say the vast majority does not. Do I think it is possible to gain control? Maybe. I thought I was completely at the mercy of my Bipolar. And it's true that I can't stop a depressive episode from happening. But I can shorten it, I can see it coming and try to avoid it, I can control the depth of it. Most importantly, I know what it is, and that it will pass. And that took years to learn. I admit that I have proven to myself that I am not willing to put in the work to stop the panic attacks. But if I were willing, I believe it would work. I learned that my chemical depression was not strictly real. Nothing bad was actually happening to me other than my brain chemicals went insane. That I don't have to act on how I feel, despite the fact that it is as chemically real as any other kind of depression. So despite the obvious differences, it does not seem so farfetched that a Schizophrenic could learn to control violent impulses. But I completely acknowledge that I am seeing it through the filter of my own experiences, which may not coincide at all with the realities of schizophrenia.

To put it another way, I don't think any schizophrenic chooses the dance, but I think they all write the song. Violent kids turn into violent schizophrenics. Religious kids grow up to have religious delusions. And everyone feels threatened or sad or angry without any mental illness at all. I think violent episodes are because of an inability to temper their reaction in that moment. But they do eventually regain control (hell, I've had some spectacular blow ups). When someone becomes regularly violent, it isn't because of a temper tantrum (for lack of a better phrase) it's because they are violent. Their internal script is supporting them, not forcing them.

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

You quote John Douglas as follows:

This conclusion is incorrect. Subjects will change their M.O. as they gain experience. This is learned behavior.

This does not contradict his observations on Klosowski, which appeared in the same chapter of his book, The Cases That Haunt Us. There is nothing problematic about the prospect of a serial killer changing "MO", but to convert a serial mutilator into a serial poisoner entails a change of signature as well as psychological make-up.

and he kept all this up right to the very end--saying he had no idea who this 'Severin Klosowski ' was and that he had never 'met' him.

There were certainly self-serving lies, not to be misconstrued as evidence of any genuine delusion.

As for Jonathan Goodman's observation that Klosowski is the least unlikely of those suspects "named", I think we can take "named" to refer to police suspects, and given that he was up against the likes of Tumblety, Ostrog, Druitt etc, the observation can hardly be considered a pro Klosowski-as-ripper argument.

All the best,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

To put it another way, I don't think any schizophrenic chooses the dance, but I think they all write the song. Violent kids turn into violent schizophrenics. Religious kids grow up to have religious delusions. And everyone feels threatened or sad or angry without any mental illness at all. I think violent episodes are because of an inability to temper their reaction in that moment. But they do eventually regain control (hell, I've had some spectacular blow ups). When someone becomes regularly violent, it isn't because of a temper tantrum (for lack of a better phrase) it's because they are violent. Their internal script is supporting them, not forcing them.

These are powerful thoughts Errata .My mother was very influenced by RD Laing's ' Divided Self '.She remembered him taking LSD and encouraging other psychiatrists to take LSD in order to understand through entering a similar experience to the internal world of a person with schizophrenia.Laing sought to move away from the medical descriptions of schizophrenia and the conventional view of hereditary factors and instead look at the effects of social and environmental factors on the individual's ability to handle their reactions to their experience of it.
The route you appear to be taking to take charge of the bipolar symptoms seems a bit similar and gives you the ownership and empowerment to deal with it on a day to day basis so you can get on with your life.
So can you explain it the bit about the violent individual more-why you think that when someone becomes violent it is because they are violent.Do you mean they were born that way,predisposed that way or that it is learned behaviour-viz from dad or mum or their peer group?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi CD.

Wolf - Are you saying that John Douglas is the ultimate authority on what someone (let alone a serial killer) will or will not do? Can you give me any physical reason why Chapman could not have switched to poison?

Douglas is a world renowned expert on serial killers with 25 years of experience in law enforcement. He practically wrote the book on the subject. I am not an expert on the subject so I defer to his vast knowledge. My suspicion is that you are also not an expert on the subject. As I said earlier, I’ll stick to the opinions of the experts rather then those of a layperson who fails to understand the complexities of the psychology of serial killers. Asking for a “physical reason” why Klosowski could not have changed to poison just highlights this. The differences between the psychopathology of a ripper/stabber serial killer and a serial killer who uses poison are vast yet you think that one can easily become the other. You can only support this opinion if you totally disregard the psychological factors that dictate the makeup of both types of killers. You might as well argue that pedophiles can easily change when circumstances dictate.

Hi Norma.

I dont have a Sugden to hand but can anyone confirm the accuracy of the quote from this 2003 post in which Wolf's so called 'expert' seems to contradict himself?
Joseph
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 5:15 pm:
Wolf, John Douglas of the FBI in Sugden's "Complete History" has to disagree with your John Douglas about the M.O. He says, "some criminologists and behavioural scientists have written that perpetrators maintain their M.O., and that this is what links so called signature crimes. This conclusion is incorrect. Subjects will change their M.O. as they gain experience. This is learned behavior." (461-462-new edition) Are we both talking about the same John Douglas. I got my info from Sugden. The problem is, where did you get your info?

You seem to have trouble with the concepts of M.O. and Signature and their importance. As Ben has written “There is nothing problematic about the prospect of a serial killer changing ‘MO’, but to convert a serial mutilator into a serial poisoner entails a change of signature as well as psychological make-up.” Douglas didn’t contradict himself.

If you re-read my earlier post on this board I stated:

“‘M.O.’ is learned behavior and some aspects of M.O. can change somewhat over time and circumstances. However, a suspects M.O doesn’t change completely so that an all new M.O. appears. It is therefore meaningless when suggesting that because killer ‘X’ changed his M.O. slightly that, therefore, this is proof that Klosowski could have been both a ripper and a poisoner. ‘Signature’ is also important in this debate and Signature changes very little, if at all. The combination of the M.O. and Signature of the Whitechapel Murderer were so far removed from that of Klosowski’s, the poisoner, that we can easily take it for granted that they weren’t the same man.”

M.O. is the “HOW,” of, in this case, a serial killer. Signature is more like the psychological “WHY.” HOW can, and does, change due to circumstances. For example, if Martha Tabram was a victim of the Ripper we can say that he learned that stabbing was a bloody and inefficient way of killing. He changed to manual strangulation followed by the deep cut to the throat going from left to right so that death was quick and the possibility of getting blood on himself was greatly diminished. Lesson learned. WHY is answered by the psychological needs fulfilled by the murders. In this case by things like picquerism, or, gaining sexual satisfaction from cutting, stabbing and mutilating his victims; having complete control over his victims and posing the bodies of his victims in debased postures. WHY, Signature, the psychology of the killer doesn’t change and the WHY of the Ripper murders are no where evident in Klosowsi’s poisonings.

Wolf.

[FrankO]

What happened Frank...was he struck off or something?

I don't know, Nats - you should ask him.

Frank

[Errata]

So can you explain it the bit about the violent individual more-why you think that when someone becomes violent it is because they are violent.Do you mean they were born that way,predisposed that way or that it is learned behaviour-viz from dad or mum or their peer group?

Sometimes I just wonder how much we limit schizophrenics because WE assume that since the damage cannot be undone, they cannot learn to cope. No one assumed that about Bipolar, and my brain chemistry will never be right. I was expected to learn to deal, and I did. And I know it's not always that simple, but if pain management can teach people how to differentiate their BRAIN wanting pain meds and their INJURY wanting pain meds, imagine what that kind of distinction could do for schizophrenics.

When I say "they are violent because they are violent" in this context, I just mean that since schizophrenia symptoms don't show up until maybe 18, more likely early 20's, that someone who was a violent child and a violent teenager will be a violent schizophrenic. Simply, they were violent before, they will be violent during and after.

If I knew what causes violence in kids, I would have a Nobel prize. Sometimes there are physical reasons, almost identical to the same brain issues that cause psychopathy. Extra Y chromosomes do it as well. There is a not insubstantial prison population that is XYY as opposed to plain old XY. Theres also something called the warrior gene, that when activated can cause violent behavior. I feel bad for those people, I feel bad for rabid dogs. Neither asked for it. Not stepping into a room with either one either.

A lot of it is learned behavior. A lot of it is a coping mechanism. Sometimes it's just sadism. There's IED, intermittent explosive disorder. Some people don't like Mondays (gruesome reference I know).

The truth is, anyone can kill. And not just accidentally run over someone. Anyone can commit murder. Some people need a lot to do it, like threatening the life of a child. Others need a little less. If I had possessed a gun while I was with my ex, I would have killed him. I did throw a knife at him once when he was being particularly awful, but he dodged it. It was not an easy thing to learn about myself that I would rather kill him than leave him, but I eventually did the right thing. Although the girl he dated after me told me she had rather I killed him. And the girl after that.

Anyone can snap and kill once. Maybe even twice. But it takes a different breed to kill many times. I had a good friend call me once to tell me he was going to kill his girlfriend's father, because he beat the crap out of her. And he meant it. He called me because he wanted me to stop him. And it wasn't easy. He had just gotten back from Iraq, and it was very easy to see this man as nothing but a target. But he said he thought "his soul would explode" if he killed one more person. He was terrified. He had lost all control, and felt like he couldn't stop himself, but he trusted me to stop him. And I swear to god I almost failed. I did fail, but the help I recruited didn't.

He didn't want what his instincts were telling him to do. And he found a way to get himself help. That option exists for everyone. He was lucky he was in tune with himself enough to recognize that despite the fact he wanted it, he didn't want it. So I would give anyone one strike. Anyone can snap, and if you do, I will give you a pass. But after that first, you know you are capable of it. You know how it happens. If you do it again, then you aren't interested in being stopped, or being helped. If you had been, then you would have gone to any length to avoid a repeat. If you shoot someone, and afterwards still keep a gun around, you aren't interested in preventing another shooting. If you kill someone in a DUI, and continue to drink and drive, you don't care whether you kill again or not. People say they care, but if they actually cared, they would change the behavior, or render themselves harmless. And schizophrenics absolutely check themselves into hospitals all the time because they are afraid they might hurt someone.

I don't know why there are violent people. But I know they can stop themselves if they want to. If they don't make the effort, they don't want to stop. And I am unwilling to give someone the excuse of mental illness when millions of people going through the exact same thing manage to find a way.

[c.d.]

Hello Wolf,

I am aware of Douglas’ reputation and his opinion certainly deserves respect. But ultimately it is simply an opinion. He is speculating on the likelihood or probability of Chapman switching to poison. He is certainly qualified to do so and way so more than me. But if he makes a statement to the effect that it is virtually impossible for Chapman to have done so, he has moved beyond an expert opinion and is claiming powers usually ascribed only to God. If he made such a statement in a court of law, he would most certainly be challenged on it and would be forced to concede that it is just his considered opinion.

I agree that the psychopathology of a ripper/stabber serial killer and a serial killer who uses poison are vastly different and no, I don’t think that one can easily become the other. But the possibility does exist because they are both human beings and no one not even Douglas can predict their actions with 100% metaphysical certainty. That is why I keep harping on any physical reason which may have kept Chapman from making the switch to poison. In the absence of any such reason, the possibility exists that Chapman could have walked into a store and purchased poison with relative ease. We have to concede that he certainly could have done so. It is only then that psychological profiling comes into play and we can address the question of how probable such an action would be. But to use profiling, M.O. and signature to eliminate even the very possibility of him doing so is putting the horse before the cart in my opinion.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Uh...that should actually be the cart before the horse. It is late and I should be in bed. Sorry about that.

c.d.

[jonwilson]

people tend to discredit chapman as a serious ripper suspect because he killed women by using poison. Is there some rule book out there that says killers will never change their mo? If someone is able to poison women, why can't he kill and mutilate prostitutes as well?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Wolf and all,

I have mentioned Robert Napper several times with regard to his change of style.
Here is an article that addresses what went on following the murder he committed on Wimbledon Common of Rachel Nickell and how the police and a famous British profiler came to mess up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/15/criminal-profiling-jon-ronson

Will get back on this in a day or two.

[ChrisGeorge]

people tend to discredit chapman as a serious ripper suspect because he killed women by using poison. Is there some rule book out there that says killers will never change their mo? If someone is able to poison women, why can't he kill and mutilate prostitutes as well?

Hello Jon

The repeated murders and mutilations of Jack the Ripper would suggest that the unknown murderer got a thrill from wielding a knife, cutting each of his victim's throats and mutilating them, if he had time. The repeated poisonings of Klosowski might imply that he got satisfaction from that silent and slow means of murdering. Somehow it doesn't compute that the same man would have these two widely different passions. I think that's what bothers myself and other commentators on the Klosowski-as-Jack idea. It's not impossible but it somehow seems highly unlikely.

Ripperologist 121 will premier very shortly and we are running an article titled "Jack Is Holmes" by Jeff Mudgett, about H. H. Holmes, Herman Webster Mudgett, the author's Great-Great-Grandfather, in which he makes a case that Dr. Holmes of the Chicago "Murder Castle" could have been the Ripper while taking a holiday in Europe while he waited for his Murder Castle to be built. It would appear to me that Mudgett possibly makes a better suspect than Klosowski.

Best regards

Chris

[GregBaron]

Always blame the American...

I look forward to that issue ChrisGeorge..........I remember mentioning this some time ago after Jeff Mudgett's claim hit the newspapers.....it was immediatly "poo poo'd" here due to a lack of evidence of his every being in London..............I sure hope there' s better documentation of that evidence............I agree, he fits the bill better than Chapman........


Greg