Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Ausgirl]

^ That said, I do think there was a progression of damage from one victim to the next, for the most part. But I believe varying levels of psychosis on any given day *could* account for those victims which 'interrupt' the progression by being markedly less violent. Ie, Stride (if indeed a victim..) *could* represent the killer on a 'not so crazy day'. MK - a truly bad one.

It's not like there's any rules to it.

[Batman]

I think its pretty obvious JtR is psychotic and very ill. For example if you find a body of a woman who has had her throat cut, that's horrific and the person who did it, quite sadistic. Yet to find that has happened to someone who has also had her sexual areas mutilated is not just sadistic, but sick. Sane people just don't do this, not even remotely.

[Ausgirl]

I think its pretty obvious JtR is psychotic and very ill. For example if you find a body of a woman who has had her throat cut, that's horrific and the person who did it, quite sadistic. Yet to find that has happened to someone who has also had her sexual areas mutilated is not just sadistic, but sick. Sane people just don't do this, not even remotely.

I agree - psychotic for sure.

I dunno about 'sadistic'.. might be an odd way to look at it, but if you think about Jack dispatching the women pretty quickly, and the majority of damage being post-mortem, he might have not been as sadistic as all that. Just compelled to kill, then mutilate. The victims wouldn't have felt any of it, past the initial stuff which killed 'em.

[Errata]

I think its pretty obvious JtR is psychotic and very ill. For example if you find a body of a woman who has had her throat cut, that's horrific and the person who did it, quite sadistic. Yet to find that has happened to someone who has also had her sexual areas mutilated is not just sadistic, but sick. Sane people just don't do this, not even remotely.

That's not how mental illness works. The vast majority of serial killers are perfectly sane, and it's wishful thinking and romantic to think that "sane people don't do this". Of course they do. Sane people bully children to the point of committing suicide. Sane people walk past dying crime victims every day. Sane people rent "Faces of Death" and laugh their way through it. Sane people rape, murder, mutilate, commit acts of genocide, and molest infants. Sane people suck, quite frankly.

You may not do those things. You may not think you know people who do those things. Well first of all, you do know people who do that. Secondly, you are not the spokesperson for sane people. And you clearly don't know a lot about mental illness.

Someone acting contrary to the needs of society as a whole, a career lawbreaker, a deviant, is not mentally ill. There is no diagnosis to be had, no pill that can make them conform, no therapy that cures them. It's a different problem. Just like Cancer is not Bipolar, serial killing is not a mental illness. Even Antisocial Personality Disorder is not a mental disorder. It's a label that psychiatrists throw at people who can't be helped by the profession ever. You could put a psychopath in psychiatric care from birth to death. His behavior will never change. It's not a mental illness. Best guess is that it is a societal disorder.

And you know what the inherent evil in your statement is that you didn't even know about? It means that people like me don't get justice. I'm mentally ill. I was gang raped when I was 12. They told me no one would believe me because I'm crazy. They were right. Obviously I was making it up, I was Bipolar. The ex boyfriend who shattered my face with a banker's lamp? Same thing.

If sane people don't do that, and someone hears that I have a mental illness diagnosis and the other person doesn't, then I'm lying. I'm delusional. It doesn't matter that I have scars and xrays. I'm just some nut looking for attention.

I will always be seen as a bomb ready to go off. People will always take a step back when they hear I'm Bipolar. I will never be allowed near anyone in my family under the age of 18. I will never stop having my friendships terminated by parents, spouses, girlfriends who have never met me but assume I am going to axe murder their loved one. I will never stop having home owner associations trying with varying degrees of success to evict me because I could hurt their kids.

And I have never been violent. I have never been self harming. I haven't so much as shouted at someone in literally 15 years.

Batman, love you dearly, but screw you and your "sane people don't do this". Of course they do. Almost to the exclusion of anyone with a mental illness. I'm not saying these guys are normal, but they aren't crazy. They aren't sick. They are just awful people.

And next time you say something like that, remember that all you are doing is pointing your finger at someone like me. Who hasn't done a damn thing except get a diagnosis and treat it in a responsible manner like everyone in society wants me to do. Never mind the cost to me. Never mind that it trashes my liver and sedates me and causes migraines and nausea. I'm sick, and I'm sicker because I treat myself, but you people are the ones who have cornered the market on disgusting. Look it up. And don't make my life harder.

[GUT]

Thank you so much for posting that Errata, I just can't believe that so many people take the warped view towards mental illness that you see so often.

As for bipolar, perhaps the most insidious condition known to man.

I know first hand how people with a physical disability are treated, put someone in a wheelchair and they become invisible, I know second hand how people with a mental illness are treated and I know first hand that those with a mental illness are way way way overrepresented in prisons.

[Ausgirl]

I say this with all appreciation of where you're coming from Errata.

There's mentally ill -- and then there's someone who is capable of Mary Kelly's murder. I think there's a vast gulf there, which the label 'mental illness' simply doesn't cover. Especially if MK's killer was indeed Jack the Ripper, and he did indeed kill all those other women.

I don't agree that he could have been 'sane' in the general use of the term. I just do not. Sane people who kill generally do so for personal gain, or some other clear motive.

It's quite possible for somebody to be quite badly psychotic and still lead a life that resembles normalcy to people living in close proximity. Most of the time (being the point of my posts above). It's rare though for somebody that ill to kill and even moreso for them to get away with it.

I think it takes more than just a mental illness to do what Jack the Ripper did. That's just a fact. Look at Dahmer. Look at Kemper. Sociopaths can be delusional, too.

I mean.. just to add this bit, sorry for the edits... a sociopath could rape and kill to evade detection, or hey, just for the kicks. A psychotic pours lead in their victim's ears to make a living zombie sex slave, or plants a head in the garden facing a window so it can 'see' what's going on. Where JtR might fit into all this, who can know. But he was far from well, and didn't get caught, so he couldn't have been psychotic all the time.

So therefore -- it's possible Kosminski was both psychotic -and- able to run his store. It's also possible he was also a sociopath. Like it's possible he was not Jack the Ripper at all.

[Errata]

I say this with all appreciation of where you're coming from Errata.

There's mentally ill -- and then there's someone who is capable of Mary Kelly's murder. I think there's a vast gulf there, which the label 'mental illness' simply doesn't cover. Especially if MK's killer was indeed Jack the Ripper, and he did indeed kill all those other women.

I don't agree that he could have been 'sane' in the general use of the term. I just do not. Sane people who kill generally do so for personal gain, or some other clear motive.

It's quite possible for somebody to be quite badly psychotic and still lead a life that resembles normalcy to people living in close proximity. Most of the time (being the point of my posts above). It's rare though for somebody that ill to kill and even moreso for them to get away with it.

I think it takes more than just a mental illness to do what Jack the Ripper did. That's just a fact. Look at Dahmer. Look at Kemper. Sociopaths can be delusional, too.

And you will never ever hear me argue that these people are normal. But they are sane. What is wrong with them is centered in someplace other than their neurochemicals and brain structure. I'm not going to talk about evil, because that implies some sort of mystical thing that I don't think exists. But the malfunction is in how they think, and how they choose to relate to the rest of the world. We know it's not neurological because we have found very few differences in the psychopathic brain. Sometimes the empathy centers are offline, but most of the people with the same malformation lead perfectly normal lives. Just like most people with the warrior gene are normal.

The best description I have ever heard is that it is literally a social disease. The part of a human that deals with society and other people and law and social contracts is just broken. It's not an electrical short, it's not a chemical imbalance, it's not a structural deficit, it isn't predicted by upbringing or previous criminal behavior. It is pure aberration of an unknown quality.

Of course mentally ill people kill. Some even become serial killers. But most are just fine. They get doctors to diagnose them before a trial, but they are never treated, and they never ask for treatment. Somebody diagnosed Gacy as schizophrenic before his trial for an insanity plea. But he never even wrote a prescription, and later admitted that Gacy met no diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. Clearly the doctor didn't think about how schizophrenics were going to affected in his quest for a quick paycheck.

Just because someone's behavior is inexplicable or even revolting doesn't mean they have a mental illness. I mean, it's the brain because everything is the brain. But diagnostics have rules, and you can't just make up the rules because something is odd. Just like no idiot assumes that a woman with a bump on her arm has a pregnant elbow.

These people aren't right by a long shot. But the vast majority do not have a disease affecting their neurochemistry or brain structure that results in known behavior patterns from certain stimuli. Their reasoning is intact. Their emotional controls are intact. Their basic brain functions are intact. That they get off on eating a woman's face is NOT normal. But it's not a disease either. They are just monsters. We can't cure it, we can't prevent it. All we can do it destroy it when we find it.

[GUT]

Of course mentally ill people kill. Some even become serial killers. But most are just fine. They get doctors to diagnose them before a trial, but they are never treated, and they never ask for treatment. Somebody diagnosed Gacy as schizophrenic before his trial for an insanity plea. But he never even wrote a prescription, and later admitted that Gacy met no diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. Clearly the doctor didn't think about how schizophrenics were going to affected in his quest for a quick paycheck.

That doctor should be struck off the medical register and any lawyer who used the evidence knowing it [not just suspecting it] to be false should be disbarred [and would be in many countries]

[Errata]

By the way, Dahmer was technically delusional, except he wasn't. He was overly optimistic, but his suppositions were dead on.

He wanted an eternally submissive partner, and removing their free will by pouring acid into their brains was his way to get that. Which seems delusional. Except it worked. It didn't last long, but at least one of his victims survived for hours. And there is a scientific way to do exactly what he was trying to do. If he'd had a textbook explaining the procedure, he would not have been considered delusional. Creepy as fucck, but not delusional. He had no textbook. But another three victims and he would have gotten it.

It's like me deciding to rebuild a 57 chevy despite never working on a car in my life. If I'm confident I can do it, my friends will think I'm delusional despite the fact that it can be done. If I have a book telling me how to do it, no one will think I am delusional, but they will think I'm a moron for attempting it.

Fine line.

[Errata]

That doctor should be struck off the medical register and any lawyer who used the evidence knowing it [not just suspecting it] to be false should be disbarred [and would be in many countries]

That's just it. Nobody in the Western World can diagnose someone from a single meeting, or even within a week. It takes 6 months. Something no consulting psychiatrist gets.

But the doctor knew what Gacy had done, and was convinced that serial killers are mentally ill. He chose schizophrenia because it was the hardest to disprove. It was the diagnosis he couldn't rule out within the span of his meetings. He picked a diagnosis because "general crazy" and "really objectionable scary guy" are not diagnoses.

Unless consulting psychiatrists are very careful with how they phrase any idea of a diagnosis, every lawyer who uses one is suborning perjury. And that's been the case since 1952.

Most testifying psychiatrists are careful to say something like "The patients symptoms are indicative of schizophrenia" or "His behavior during the session led me to believe that he was suffering from Bipolar disorder". Not definative diagnoses. They tell a jury what they think 6 months of observation will show. People not familiar with the diagnostic process assume that's a diagnosis. Or a lawyer implies that the mandatory 6 month observation period is overly cautious.

In this case however, the doctor was unfortunately quite definitive. He didn't lie exactly. He was asked for his opinion, and that was his opinion given what he could rule out. But it was bad medicine. Good expert witness procedure, bad doctoring. And he was giving a talk at a local university on the use of expert witnesses, and he regrets his involvement. And not because he thinks Gacy was sane, which he absolutely was. He thinks he robbed Gacy of the opportunity to have a genuine assessment and possibly a real chance at a diagnosis and meaningful treatment. Which is what makes him a lousy doctor, because he did exactly that. I think it didn't matter with Gacy, but there have been other criminals who could have turned it around if someone had given them real help. And that's a doctor's job.

It seems rather obvious to state that the whole system is messed up.

[Ausgirl]

I think the delusional part was in Dahmer believing it could work on a sustainable level, which is what I think was going on there. So we'll have to agree to disagree on the mental illness issue with him at least, and that's okay with me.

It interests me that a great many of these 'big name' serial killers who've been studied exhibit many symptoms of 'social disorder' in their childhoods. rarely delusions though. I agree - most will claim mental illness as a cause and that just does not wash in court like it used to, thank goodness.

But yeah. I think mental illness can affect sociopaths too. It's something to think about, anyways.

[Ausgirl]

Just to add, re Errata's post on Gacy - you'll note I did not include him as an example of 'delusional'. He was certainly not. Nowhere does his behaviour indicate it, at all. Gacy was a sociopathic rapist who enjoyed collecting the bodies so he could keep his victims close, get that sense of 'ownership' he clearly enjoyed.

Different kettle of fish from Dahmer, though.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to re-aliterate what Dr Lars Davidson said 'Schizophrenics are nomore likely than other members of society to commit violent crime' (I believe he also added more likely to be a danger to themselves) My research on this actually shows statistically this isn't quite true, but I've also caveated that schizophrenics are more prone to alcohol and drug addication and more likely to be in poverty or more statistically violent areas. It would therefore be irresponsible not to take what Dr Lars Davidson says seriously. Schizophrenics per ce are not dangerous.

But of course as Errita points out other, apparently normal 'sane' human beings can become very dangerous indeed.

Adolf Hitler was not mad. He did not score high on the sociopathic scale. And some perfectly sane human being today tragically cut off the head of a Japanese journalist and placed the video on social media. We are part of a species that invented the Atom Bomb.

But what we are talking about here is mental illness. And it is simply a matter of fact that during a phase known as 'Psychosis' human beings can become very dangerous indeed. Thats not the same as saying they will, simply that it is possible and does happen.

Clearly the person in the delusional state doesn't really have any concept that they are delusional everything makes sense to them a bit like our own dreams seem to make sense while we are in them.

My understanding from someone who has spent many years working with schizophrenics, and is an expert in their field, is that each individuals illness will be unique to them. Level of functionality will vary from one person to another but there are simpler traits that might be recognised. If 'Ausgirl' is discussing a person with schizophrenia then much of what she describes rings true, but she could also be describing someone with Savere bi-polar. (I'm not an expert)

But the Jack the Ripper murders I do know a little about and thats what we are discussing here, and a 'Psychotic' disorganised killer seems the most logical explanation for these crimes. I think they can be described as a Progression.. clearly Chapman to Eddow's is a progression. Its difficult to be certain because we don't know how much time he had at each murder scene and if he was disturbed by someone, as seems probable at the Stride murder with Schwartz and pipe man. It also depends which victims you include, personally i think Alice McKenzie was a ripper victim.

But Jack does not require a lot of skill, expertise or cunning. They are largely random attacks and he was just very lucky not to have been caught…in the act..

Theres possibly evidence he tried to avoid blood splatter, but he didn't require any more knowledge than a butcher. My understanding that in the early stages of schizophrenia, in early episodes, young men are quite capable of functioning to the level shown by Jack the Ripper.

Thats not saying all schizophrenics will, in fact the exact opposite, i'm saying this is extremely rare. However someone did commit these crimes and as its difficult to see a Great White on the Streets of White chapel going unnoticed, someone, a loan individual, suffering some sort of Psychosis, seems the most probable solution.

I've never seen the date 1885 for Aaron's illness written in his notes. I'd be most surprised if I'd missed something like that. A to Z gives date of existing attack as six months. First attack 25. Added in red ink on the admissions book does give 6 years and age 26. Which would get you this date but would still make Kosminski 20 years old, but as its an update I think we should be cautious. The problem is it gives no idea of the number of attacks or there frequency or severity.

And it doesn't change the fact that Schizophrenics can be highly functional and dangerous in the early onset of their illness.

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Theres possibly evidence he tried to avoid blood splatter, but he didn't require any more knowledge than a butcher.

While this was Bonds position, it is not the position of those who examined the other bodies and today medical experts seem to almost unanimously agree that he must have had more than just the knowledge of a butcher.

No one has been able to demonstrate a smash and grab of a kidney without damaging organs in front of it, done with one sweep of the knife, nor how a heart could be removed under the rig-cage while severing it from the top in a smash and grab. The removal of chapman's womb is also done with much more skill than Bond suggested. Even if you look at murder of MJK Bond has skipped on many questions we have about it.

He was also forensically aware. No bloody footprints nor much blood about the place.

JtR must have at least had some 'shadowing' medical experience somehow.

[Jeff Leahy]

While this was Bonds position, it is not the position of those who examined the other bodies and today medical experts seem to almost unanimously agree that he must have had more than just the knowledge of a butcher.

Unanimous Experts… your joking right?

No one has been able to demonstrate a smash and grab of a kidney without damaging organs in front of it, done with one sweep of the knife, nor how a heart could be removed under the rig-cage while severing it from the top in a smash and grab. The removal of chapman's womb is also done with much more skill than Bond suggested. Even if you look at murder of MJK Bond has skipped on many questions we have about it.

Theres a whole world of difference between a surgical procedure and cutting organs out of a carcus. There is nothing to stop someone with extreme strength pushing there hands into a body cavity pulling out what ever they find and cutting it lose… He wasn't trying to preform surgery or keep the patient alive. He was smash and grab.

He was also forensically aware. No bloody footprints nor much blood about the place.

JtR must have at least had some 'shadowing' medical experience somehow.

Try telling that to Martha Tabram?

But he certainly learned on the job that cutting the throat and reducing blood pressure would avoid blood splatter. And this demonstrates an element of knowledge.. However a butcher could have known this.. Add to the mix that he was almost certainly working in the dark at the Eddows and Nichols murder scenes. So touch seems the most probable explanation.

Yours Jeff