PDA

View Full Version : Does "Sexually Insane" Mean Homosexual?


Chris Scott
August 28th, 2011, 06:55 AM
A perennial point that surfaces from time to time has appeared again in the "Druitt, cricket and other statistics" which, in my opinion, deserves its own thread. This is the thorny problem of what exactly is meant by the phrase "sexually insane" as applied to Druitt?
Let us remind ourselves of what was written in the the Macnaghten memorandum, where the phrase in question occurs.
(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.
Now, the much discussed question is this:
Does Macnaghten mean by this phrase that Druitt was, or was believed to be, homosexual?
Although male homosexuality was at this period completely illegal, (the Oscar Wilde trials occurred the very year after the Macnaghten memo was written) and would very probably be described at the time as unnatural and a perversion, was the phrase "sexually insane" an accepted euphemism for homsexuality?
Very pertinent to this is a supplementary question. Is there any other known contemporary or near contemporary instance of the phrase "sexually insane" being unequivocally used to indicate homosexuality?
The issue is important in that it has produced ramifications. The much discussed reason for Druitt's "serious trouble" and his apparently precipitate dismissal from Valentine's school, has been often explained as inappropriate conduct with his pupils. But on this aspect two important points need to be stressed:
1) There is not ONE SHRED of evidence to support this interpretation of events and there are other perfectly viable alternatives.
2) The mention of Druitt being sexually insane, and this phrase being interpreted as his being homosexual, would seem to suggest that in the interpretation of events involving his pupils, that there could be some causal link between homosexuality and child molestation. All evidence suggests that there is no such link and the vast majority of child molesters would be classified as heterosexual.
The interpretation that Druitt was homosexual seems to have entered the Ripper mythos and I have seen numerous instances where it is stated as though a given and proven fact. In fact, of course, it is nothing of the sort. There is NO evidence of any sort regarding Druitt's sexuality.
The point I think of most interest is that of any other known instance where the phrase "sexually insane" is used to definitely indicate homosexuality.

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 07:39 AM
Chris,
Macnaghten gives a fairly clear (albeit over simplified) definition of what he meant by sexually insane in Days of My Years and in essence it meant somebody who killed for the love of killing, or who was aroused by the sight of blood:

"MOTIVELESS murders, are, from a detective's point of view, of very exceptional interest, and the two most remarkable of these, within the last generation, were unquestionably those known as " The Lambeth Poisoning Case " in 1892, for which the notorious Neil Cream suffered the extreme penalty of the law, and the Camden Town murder in 1907, for which no one was ever made amenable. Both of these murders were committed by sexual maniacs, by men who killed for the joy of killing, but their types were wholly different."

"Students of history, however, are aware that an excessive indulgence in vice leads, in certain cases, to a craving for blood. Nero was probably a sexual maniac. Many Eastern potentates in all ages, who loved to see slaves slaughtered or wild beasts tearing each other to pieces, have been similarly affected."

The term as interpreted and applied by Macnaghten therefore does not imply homosexuality, but is a motive for killing simply for the sake of killing, though it embraced "in many cases a hatred of woman as woman" and "Not infrequently the maniac possesses
a diseased body."

Phil Carter
August 28th, 2011, 07:45 AM
Hello Chris,

This is a decisve post of yours, thank you.

1) There is no shred of evidence against Druitt being a murderer.
2) There is no shred of evidence of him having been violent, either towards men or women.
3) No qualified doctor has pronounced Druitt as insane.
4) No qualified doctor has ever brought Druiit's sexuality in question.
5) There is no shred of evidence of him having been seen nor recognised in the area of Whitechapel by anyone.
6) There is great doubt of literary evidence that "sexually insane" means homosexual.
7) MacNaghten was not a qualified Doctor. He was therefore not in any position to declare anybody sexually insane, on the presumption that it does not mean homosexual.
8) There is actually no evidence of insanity of any sort except from Druitt himself in his own suicide noted where he feared he would go the saem way as his mother.
9) Hereditary insanity does not mean a doorway to homosexuality.
10) There has never been a serial killing cricketer in the entire history of the game, at the level of Druitt nor above.
11) Sexual insanity is a terminology that has a medical background.
12) There is no evidence for Druitt actually being homosexual.
13) There is no evidence that he ever laid a finger on any schoolboy.
14) He was a successful Barrister and had no apparent money worries.
15) The West of England MP was not a qualified doctor either, and cannot possibly have been in a position of authority to have influenced MacNaghten on any medical terminology.
16) That from private information the family or friends or aquaintances of Druitt believed him to be the murderer is in actual fact, a waste of time and a red herring. There were very many other people who "believed" "x, y or z" to have been the murderer. Being a family or person of position in society doesn't mean that they should be warranted any more weight of opinion on labelling someone a murderer than a poor family's opinions.
17) If Anderson was completely right.. then MacNaghten wasn't. If MacNaghten was completely right, then Anderson wasn't. It cannot be both ways because then we have two murderers. And if those two are BOTH correct, Abberline is wrong. Unless you have three murderers. And if they are right, Reid is completely wrong saying there wasn't a piffle of evidence against anyone. And if Reid is right... then Anderson, MacNaghten and Abberline are all wrong. So the label of sexually insane by a policeman without any evidence weighed up against Reid, is logically underweighted. Likewise Anderson, likewise Abberline.

All of the above, or even HALF of the above, suggests the whole thing is complete supposition and one single person's hunch... and don't you think Abberline, Reid, Arnold and Co would have dearly loved to have said ..yes, we got him?

People can argue until they are blue in the face about this.. but until some piece of paper turns up from somewhere (if it does, be sure it will be for the 125th)... Druitt is a dead duck in terms of being a suspect. There just isnt the evidence, whether sexuallly insane means homosexual or not. And if it did..

it still doesnt make him a killer. Homosexual, straight, bi-sexual, tranvestitite or even hermaphrodite. It doesn't make him a killer.

Thanks for posting this Chris.

kindly

Phil

Phil Carter
August 28th, 2011, 07:55 AM
Hello Paul,

I hope you are well.

The term as interpreted and applied by Macnaghten therefore does not imply homosexuality, but is a motive for killing simply for the sake of killing, though it embraced "in many cases a hatred of woman as woman" and "Not infrequently the maniac possesses
a diseased body."

Ok.. if you wish to argue that point, then where has MacNaghten the evidence of Druitt having a "hatred of woman as woman" come from, and the "evidence of a diseased body"? The word of "private info? That is nowhere near enough qualified to label a person as a murderer, based on an interpretation of a line "sexually insane".

No known fact about Druitt allies to either of these points. There is no evidence that Druitt even crushed a fly, let alone mutilated a bunch of unfortunates. Even his supposed insanity only actually comes in written form from his own fear of going the same way as his mother.

kindly

Phil

Jeff Leahy
August 28th, 2011, 08:13 AM
Hello Paul,

I hope you are well.



Ok.. if you wish to argue that point, then where has MacNaghten the evidence of Druitt having a "hatred of woman as woman" come from, and the "evidence of a diseased body"? The word of "private info? That is nowhere near enough qualified to label a person as a murderer, based on an interpretation of a line "sexually insane".

No known fact about Druitt allies to either of these points. There is no evidence that Druitt even crushed a fly, let alone mutilated a bunch of unfortunates. Even his supposed insanity only actually comes in written form from his own fear of going the same way as his mother.

kindly

Phil

I dont see how this can be argued without knowing the nature of McNaughtens 'Private info'

It's all supposition and can be argued to both suport and dismiss Druit as a possible Jack.

"We dont know" , is a perfectly reasonable position

Yours Jeff

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 08:48 AM
Hello Paul,

I hope you are well.



Ok.. if you wish to argue that point, then where has MacNaghten the evidence of Druitt having a "hatred of woman as woman" come from, and the "evidence of a diseased body"? The word of "private info? That is nowhere near enough qualified to label a person as a murderer, based on an interpretation of a line "sexually insane".

No known fact about Druitt allies to either of these points. There is no evidence that Druitt even crushed a fly, let alone mutilated a bunch of unfortunates. Even his supposed insanity only actually comes in written form from his own fear of going the same way as his mother.

kindly

Phil

I am not arguing any point. The question Chris posed was whether or not "sexually insane" equated with homosexual, and I am providing Macnaghten's definition of it, from which it seems clear that it didn't, but meant killing for the pleasure of killing. Nowhere do I say or does Macnaghten say that Druitt hated women as women or that he had a diseased body, only that sexual maniacs "in many cases" and "not infrequently" possess such traits. Macnaghten in fact makes it clear that sexual maniacs came in Protean forms.

As for your other comments, I am not aware that Macnaghten labeled anyone a murderer simply on a line "sexually insane".

Rob House
August 28th, 2011, 09:45 AM
Hello Paul,

Maybe I am misreading something here, but it seems you are equating "sexually insane" with "sexual maniac." I am not entirely convinced that the two terms are equal. They might be, but I don't know.

Rob H

Rob House
August 28th, 2011, 10:08 AM
This source describes sexual insanity as "adults mentally disordered through sexual continence or abuse." I think the idea is to "become" insane through "sexual irregularities", and this would probably include masturbation, a.k.a "abuse".

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bx6gAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA374&dq=%22sexual+insanity%22&hl=en&ei=IkdaTqjUEpDE0AH206yUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22sexual%20insanity%22&f=false

This book mentions "mania of lactation and other forms of sexual insanity." Mania of lactation perhaps being postpartum depression(?). It also mentions "nymphomania" as another form of sexual insanity.

http://books.google.com/books?id=B0oXAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA233&dq=%22sexual+insanity%22&hl=en&ei=IkdaTqjUEpDE0AH206yUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=lactation&f=false

This book mentions "sexual insanity especially among masturbators" - http://books.google.com/books?id=LAoh0MahLOIC&pg=PA335&dq=%22sexual+insanity%22&hl=en&ei=IkdaTqjUEpDE0AH206yUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22sexual%20insanity%22&f=false


This source mentions a letter written by Oscar Wilde in which he asks his sentence be commuted "on the grounds that he was not criminal, but a man suffering from sexual insanity." This would perhaps support the idea that one of the forms of sexual insanity was homosexuality.

http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Appendix/Library/Robbins.html

"These words mimic, in a very different tone, another letter which Wilde wrote in prison, this time to the Home Secretary. This second letter is humble, scientific and legalistic. Wilde asked for his sentence to be commuted on the grounds that he was not criminal, but a man suffering from sexual insanity. He borrows the register of contemporary sociology and criminology, and insists (as Ackroyd’s Wilde does with satirical intent) that he is a case study, not an evil man. His crimes are ‘diseases to be cured by a physician rather than crimes to be punished by a judge’ (Selected Letters, 142)."

This source equates "sexual insanity" with "erotomania" and refers to "satyriasis" and "nymphomania."
http://books.google.com/books?id=-tJvuxjGYU4C&pg=PA1156&dq=%22sexual+insanity%22&hl=en&ei=IkdaTqjUEpDE0AH206yUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22sexual%20insanity%22&f=false

Under the entry for erotomania - "Suppressed nature, however, demands her rights, and the unnatural life of monks often leads to erotic insanity; in such cases we see in the same individual mystic ideas associated with irresistible sexual appetite provoking wild excesses."

Moreover, I think Psychopathia Sexualis was essentially a "medico-legal study of sexual insanity" in its various forms.

RH

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 10:50 AM
Hi Rob,
I was perhaps being over-simplistic in taking "mania" to be synonymous with "insanity". Macnaghten says Jack the Ripper was a sexual maniac and he proceeds to define a "sexual maniac" as someone who kills for the pleasure of killings, though, as said, he acknowledges that this takes many forms, and it seems that his primary concern was to make it clear to his readers that killing could be and sometimes was the sole purpose of the murderer. It seems that mental health definitions were and to some degree still are fairly fluid. Anyway, the main point was whether or not Macnaghten used "sexual mania" as a euphemism for homosexual, and it seems that he didn't.
Paul

Chris G.
August 28th, 2011, 11:12 AM
I am not arguing any point. The question Chris posed was whether or not "sexually insane" equated with homosexual, and I am providing Macnaghten's definition of it, from which it seems clear that it didn't, but meant killing for the pleasure of killing. Nowhere do I say or does Macnaghten say that Druitt hated women as women or that he had a diseased body, only that sexual maniacs "in many cases" and "not infrequently" possess such traits. Macnaghten in fact makes it clear that sexual maniacs came in Protean forms.

As for your other comments, I am not aware that Macnaghten labeled anyone a murderer simply on a line "sexually insane".

Hi Paul

You did not in your answer talk about Littlechild but it would seem that in his letter to G. R. Sims of 1913 Littlechild was equating sexually deviancy and hatred of women with the type of man the Whitechapel murderer might have been.

Chris

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 11:35 AM
Yes he did. But it was Macnaghten who was describing Druitt and it is therefore Macnaghten's understanding of the term "sexual maniac" that presumably describes Druitt.

Chris G.
August 28th, 2011, 11:38 AM
Yes he did. But it was Macnaghten who was describing Druitt and it is therefore Macnaghten's understanding of the term "sexual maniac" that presumably describes Druitt.

Fair enough.

Rob House
August 28th, 2011, 12:32 PM
Hi Paul,

I guess my issue with your assumption is that Macnaghten (in the memorandum) seems to be listing several facts buttressing his theory that Macnaghten was the Ripper, and that the statement "he was sexually insane" seems to be, in Macnaghten's opinion, a fact that supports his theory. If "sexually insane" means that he was a person who killed for the pleasure of killing... well, this would be a fairly weird statement to make, would it not?

It would analogous to saying "I believe that such-and-such a person was a serial killer because he a) was a loner b) was obsessed with his mother c) visited the murder sites d) hated prostitutes e) had a history of violence and f) killed for pleasure." It just does not make sense as an argument, unless there is actual proof he was the murderer. For a convicted and known killer (like Cream) it would make sense to say that he killed for pleasure, but for a possible suspect, such a statement makes no sense, unless you know it for a fact.

Therefore, I tend to think that "sexually insane," in this particular context, must mean something else.

Rob

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 01:43 PM
Well, it's Macnaghten's definition, not mine. I was simplytrying to say how Macnaghten defined the term.
Paul

Rob House
August 28th, 2011, 02:02 PM
Hi again Paul,

Yes, but this gets back to my first point. Macnaghten's definition of a "sexual maniac" was a murderer who killed for pleasure, but I am not dure if Macnaghten meant the same thing when he called Druitt "sexually insane." Yes, I believe he called Jack the Ripper a "sexual maniac"... fair enough. But he did not use this term to describe Druitt.

I realize I may seem to be nitpicking, but I think it is an important distinction.

Cheers.

Rob

Hi Chris,

Re: your PM: yes in my previous post I did not mean to write "buttressing his theory that Macnaghten was the Ripper."

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 03:11 PM
Hi Rob,
You are absolutely correct that Macnaghten did not call Druitt a "sexual maniac" in either version of the memorandum in which Druitt iscited by name. But in Days of My Years Macnaghten wrote: "There can be no doubt that in the room at Miller's Court the madman found ample scope for the opportunities he had all along been seeking, and the probability is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have ceased. The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms, as will be shown later on in other cases."

Macnaghten either had Druitt in mind when he wrote this or he was thinking of somebody else. Since there is no real reason to suppose that he meant somebody else, and since he elsewhere said that Druitt was sexually insane and here says the murderer was a "sexual maniac", and since he thought that Druitt was the murderer, and since he later says that the murderer committed suicide in the Thames and Druitt committed suicide in the Thames, I'd say it is reasonable to suppose that he had Druitt in mind and was saying that Druitt was a "sexual maniac".

And what Macnaghten meant by "sexual maniac" is someone who killed because he liked it, a motive which he clearly states ordinary people did not understand: "Very few people, except barristers, doctors, and police officers, realise that such a thing as sexual mania exists, and, in a murder case similar to the two mentioned above, it is a most difficult task for prosecuting counsel to make a jury fully understand that it supplies and accounts for the complete absence of any other motive for the crime."

So, I suggest that Macnaghten was not attributing to Druitt any aberrant behavior or perceived aberrant behavior, such as homosexuality, but meant only that he lacked the conventional motives of other criminals and murderers.

Rob House
August 28th, 2011, 05:47 PM
Hi Paul,

You may well be right. But the other possible interpretation is that Druitt believed that the Ripper was a sexual maniac, AND knew (from his family perhaps) that Druitt exhibited some type of behavior that would fit the Victorian definition of sexual insanity. And that as a result of this, Macnaghten considered this behavior as additional proof of Druitt's guilt (in addition to the other facts he lists as facts supporting Druitt's guilt). I have no idea what that behavior was, but it might have been homosexuality, erotomania, masturbation, fetishism, sexual abuse of youngsters, what have you. That has always been my interpretation of that particular comment anyway.

Cheers.
Rob

Cris Malone
August 28th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Contemporary authors such as Krafft-Ebing and most certainly Edward Mann, suggests just what Rob has pointed out.. a perverse sexual behavior that could lead to some type of morbid indulgence...'satyriasis'... as Dr. Bond, via Krafft-Ebing put it.

Mann, in his 1893 book, Medical Jurisprudence and Insanity, went so far as to include homosexuality as sexual insanity while Krafft-Ebing backed off of that to suggest that ...' Sexual feeling may be intensified to lust'. Whether Macnaghten meant this is anyone's guess, but he certainly thought he had obtained information that Druitt displayed some perceived sexual perversion that could have led to a more morbid indulgence believed to be displayed in some of the Whitechapel murders. In other words, 'sexual insanity' or 'mania' could lead to murder involving mutilation and extraction of sexual organs.

As Phil stated, Macnaghten was no expert in human psychology and we don't know if he consulted Bond or some other medico for advice or simply relied upon his own notions as to what was deviant behavior in his mind. Although not related to Druitt, Littlechild's letter to Sims is still very telling in that regard.

Phil Carter
August 28th, 2011, 08:05 PM
Hello Cris,

To my mind, the ONLY thing that might possibly just, perhaps, support some of Mac's diagnosis of Druitt's mental state is the date of the MM.. 1894.

Now this is pure supposition.. did MM read or have access to Edward Mann's book from 1893? Or did he consult Bond and through him, the views of Kraft-Ebbing..or vica-versa.

It would explain Mac having some sort of knowledgable comment on sexual insanity.. as he was clearly very underqualified to label anyone with such a disorder of his own accord.

It's all supposition of course.. but I must say that it doesn't add anywhere near enough weight to the words serial murderer attached to Druitt. Far far too tenuous, imho.

One very important thing is often overlooked with MacNaghten. He stated that he had destroyed all his papers on the case.. when he clearly did not.

So how much of what he actually stated CAN be taken as gospel truth?

I'm sorry, but a high ranking policemen playing at the defining of precise human psychological conditions related to sexual perversion and lust, and the effect of this upon the mind in order to define those effects as a qualification for being a multi-murdering serial killer that destroys female bodies...really isn't realistic.

To my mind, that's comparable with me stating that a certain Norwegian mass murderer called Brevik is a "nutter".. when I have no basis for making that comment at all. He may well be perfectly sane.. (and it looks like he may be 100% in total control of all of his thoughts, and links it to his logic, however differing to that logic we others think is logical or not)

I would not base any label on any person that comes from an unqualified non mental and sexual expert as reliable.

From private info?... heresay I call it.

kindly

Phil

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 09:53 PM
Hi Paul,

You may well be right. But the other possible interpretation is that Druitt believed that the Ripper was a sexual maniac, AND knew (from his family perhaps) that Druitt exhibited some type of behavior that would fit the Victorian definition of sexual insanity. And that as a result of this, Macnaghten considered this behavior as additional proof of Druitt's guilt (in addition to the other facts he lists as facts supporting Druitt's guilt). I have no idea what that behavior was, but it might have been homosexuality, erotomania, masturbation, fetishism, sexual abuse of youngsters, what have you. That has always been my interpretation of that particular comment anyway.

Cheers.
Rob

Of course Macnaghten (who I take it you mean) may have believed the Ripper was a sexual maniac and Druitt may have exhibited characteristics that fitted that expectation. But, as I keep on saying, Macnaghten defined, at least in a general sense, what he meant by "sexual maniac", and it doesn't appear to embrace those activities you mention.

We can deduce from other writings that the sort of aberrant behavior or perceived aberrant behavior you mention was believed to contribute to or otherwise cause insanity, including becoming a "sexual maniac", and Macnaghten seems to be addressing this in his remarks, but clearly does not define any specific one as associated with being a "sexual maniac".

Let's get back to the original question, which was whether "sexual maniac" as applied by Macnaghten meant homosexual. The answer to that question is that it doesn't, not at least as far as the definition provided by Macnaghten goes. A "sexual maniac" was someone who killed for pleasure and had no conventional motive that the public expected at that time.

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 10:15 PM
Contemporary authors such as Krafft-Ebing and most certainly Edward Mann, suggests just what Rob has pointed out.. a perverse sexual behavior that could lead to some type of morbid indulgence...'satyriasis'... as Dr. Bond, via Krafft-Ebing put it.

Mann, in his 1893 book, Medical Jurisprudence and Insanity, went so far as to include homosexuality as sexual insanity while Krafft-Ebing backed off of that to suggest that ...' Sexual feeling may be intensified to lust'. Whether Macnaghten meant this is anyone's guess, but he certainly thought he had obtained information that Druitt displayed some perceived sexual perversion that could have led to a more morbid indulgence believed to be displayed in some of the Whitechapel murders. In other words, 'sexual insanity' or 'mania' could lead to murder involving mutilation and extraction of sexual organs.

As Phil stated, Macnaghten was no expert in human psychology and we don't know if he consulted Bond or some other medico for advice or simply relied upon his own notions as to what was deviant behavior in his mind. Although not related to Druitt, Littlechild's letter to Sims is still very telling in that regard.

Chris,
I haven't said that perverse sexual behavior couldn't lead to murder and mutilation, and neither did Macnaghten, who specifically stated: "Students of history, however, are aware that an excessive indulgence in vice leads, in certain cases, to a craving for blood." He then cites the Emperor Nero and Eastern potentates "who loved to see slaves slaughtered or wild beasts tearing each other to pieces" as examples of people with a lust for blood.

Again, the question was whether or not "sexual maniac" meant homosexual, and the answer is that, according to Macnaghten's own definition of what he meant, it didn't. That doesn't mean that Druitt wasn't homosexual, a child molester, or anything else one cares to imagine.

Paul
August 28th, 2011, 10:29 PM
I'm sorry, but a high ranking policemen playing at the defining of precise human psychological conditions related to sexual perversion and lust, and the effect of this upon the mind in order to define those effects as a qualification for being a multi-murdering serial killer that destroys female bodies...really isn't realistic.

Is that what Macnaghten was doing or is it what you perceive him as doing or want him to be doing so that you can challenge his credibility and/or Druitt's stature as a suspect?

What Macnaghten was doing or trying to do was to explain to his general readers that some murderers don't have conventional motives, which in turn makes them difficult to detect and even more difficult to convict. They kill because killing gives them pleasure, a concept which Macnaghten clearly believed the majority of people, his readers among them, didn't understand. This is what he says very clearly in The Days of My Years, and the only place he may venture into psychology is when he attributes this blood lust to indulgence in "vices" which he does not specify.

Chris G.
August 29th, 2011, 01:15 AM
Hi all

It might be useful to post here what I wrote in a recent blog (http://blog.casebook.org/chrisgeorge/2011/08/15/early-american-commentators-on-the-ripper-case/) posting on early American commentators on the case over on Casebook:

Dr. Howard Atwood Kelly (1858–1943), a pioneer obstetrician and gynecologist, and one of the “Four Doctors” in a portrait by John Singer Sargent of the founding physicians of Johns Hopkins Hospital, wrote to the Medical News (http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/medical_news/mednews881013.html) in a letter published in the issue of 13 October 1888. Kelly, at the time of the murders, an Associate Professor of Obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, put the murders down to sexual perversion. Dr. Kelly wrote:

“The great liability to error on the part of the officers of the law, in the investigation of such cases as the present, lies in the fact that they are misled in their effort to appreciate the motive, and invariably attribute it to an ordinary criminal instinct. Such, however, is not the case, and it is as impossible for a sound healthy man to conceive the nature of the impulse which impels the paederest, or other sexual pervert, as it would be to conceive a new color.”

After giving a list of examples of sexual perversities throughout history, Dr. Kelly wrote:

“A desire to murder without any apparent motive, a desire which practises its cruelties invariably upon women, and that of a certain class; added to this the mutilation of the genitals of the corpse, and, in at least on instance, the peculiar practice of slitting open the belly and drawing out the entrails.”

I am assuming that Dr. Kelly had read the works of Krafft-Ebing.

Best regards

Chris

Adam Went
August 29th, 2011, 01:37 AM
Just spotted this thread after already posting on the other Druitt thread.

As has already been said, the bottom line is that we just don't know what was being alluded to. It's ridiculous to try and pick into the mind Macnaghten as his other thoughts were so outlandish and seemingly out of the blue, with little or no evidence to back them up, that we would be excelling ourselves to guess correctly.

I've already stated my views that it is an allusion to homosexuality and perhaps hatred of women, especially prostitutes, as a result of that, but as Phil Carter stated early on in this thread, be there any truth in any of that at all - and there's no proof of it - it still does not make Druitt the killer. Indeed, one would wonder why a homosexual young man who had it all - career, money, sport - would be interested in killing middle-aged prostitutes in that manner and eventually quite literally driving himself to the drink over it.

Cheers,
Adam.

Paul
August 29th, 2011, 02:37 AM
Adam,
Surely the bottom line is that we do know what Managhten is alluding to because Macnaghten couldn't tell us more clearly and straightforwardly what he meant, and like it or not it wasn't homosexuality. As said, Macnaghten attributed sexual mania to an overindulgence in unspecified vices, which could have included homosexuality, but Macnaghten doesn’t say it was or give the slightest reason for assuming that it was.

Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
August 29th, 2011, 05:11 AM
There is a sort of aberration mentioned in My Secret Life" by Walter, in that he mentions a desire to have sex with the lowest, roughest looking women on the street

Perhaps Druitt utilising such prostitutes was seen as a type of satyriasis and sexual insanity

Stephen Thomas
August 29th, 2011, 05:57 AM
Ah ha

Jack the Ripper was a sexual maniac.

Druitt was 'sexually insane'.

Therefore Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

Is that what you think MacNaghton believed, Paul?

I doubt that he could be that stupid.

Jeff Leahy
August 29th, 2011, 06:13 AM
Hello Cris,

To my mind, that's comparable with me stating that a certain Norwegian mass murderer called Brevik is a "nutter".. when I have no basis for making that comment at all. He may well be perfectly sane.. (and it looks like he may be 100% in total control of all of his thoughts, and links it to his logic, however differing to that logic we others think is logical or not)

l

If you could provide an 'expert' to make such a statement you might have a point.

However knowledge on insanity is largely the observation of case studies. The chemical interactions in the brain that cause madness are still a grey area, as is the precise working of the human brain.

Actually as McNaughten is a professional police officer with an obvious interest in such matters I think it fair to conclude that he probably had a better idea of definitions and terminology than the average member of the victorian public.

Quite what is meant by 'nutter' is a wholely seperate debate (one might argue that the entire member of the 'opposite sex' fits into that catigory:peep:)

However we can say that Brevik is a Spree killer as fact. And it is therefore reasonable to draw comparisions of 'case behaviour' to other spree killings.

The only observation I have made is that 'in some ways the JtR murders might be more like a mordern Spree killing than a modern serial killing'.

What you point out is that there is no obvious madness in Brevik, so the possibility exists that no obvious outward madness existed in JtR. Its simply a possibility draw from case study.

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
August 29th, 2011, 06:31 AM
Ah ha

Jack the Ripper was a sexual maniac.

Druitt was 'sexually insane'.

Therefore Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

Is that what you think MacNaghton believed, Paul?

I doubt that he could be that stupid.

Were going in circles but we dont know why McNaughten believed Druit was the Ripper. But Druit is a top suspect because he states clearly he beleives that he was.

Paul has simply made the case that McNaughten probably wasnt refering to Druit as a homosexual or he would have been clearer in his wording. He wasnt...

But without knowing the 'private info', we dont know.

However if you want to pin JtR on Druit I think you require a reason for Druit centering himself on the corner of Brick lane and Osbourne Street...all the other commuting serial killers had a reason, largely clubs with the correct prey type.

Yours Jeff

Paul
August 29th, 2011, 06:52 AM
Ah ha

Jack the Ripper was a sexual maniac.

Druitt was 'sexually insane'.

Therefore Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

Is that what you think MacNaghton believed, Paul?

I doubt that he could be that stupid.

No, I don't think that and I, too, doubt that Macnaghten would think it.

Stephen Thomas
August 29th, 2011, 07:17 AM
No, I don't think that and I, too, doubt that Macnaghten would think it.

Thanks, Paul

I was just trying to 'clear the air' there.

Paul
August 29th, 2011, 07:39 AM
I could tell, Stephen. :-)

Chris G.
August 29th, 2011, 10:24 AM
Ah ha

Jack the Ripper was a sexual maniac.

Druitt was 'sexually insane'.

Therefore Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

Is that what you think MacNaghton believed, Paul?

I doubt that he could be that stupid.

Hi Stephen et al.

One would hope that Macnaghten was not that stupid, or rather misled, about what he was looking at in terms of Druitt's candidacy. But it's possible, I fear, that the notion, say, that Druitt was driven to go with low East End women or had some other vice connected to the East End plus some idea in his family that he could have been the killer, combined with the overarching and, I am afraid eternally damning, reality that he died at the right time to have been the killer, to make him Jack the Ripper in Macnaghten's mind. And while Jonathan Hainsworth argues strongly that Macnaghten fully investigated Druitt, we don't know that. In fact, if we go by the wording of the famous Memorandum, Macnaghten displays only a skimpy knowledge of the man in telling us that Druitt was "said to be a doctor & of good family" which gives us no reassurance that he looked deeply into the man or his background. Jonathan's argument is that as a fellow gentile Englishman, Macnaghten would not have chosen Druitt as his candidate to have been the Ripper unless he was certain he was the killer, yet could it be more that Sir Melville was so certain of the suspect's depravity that he became equally certain of Druitt's guilt? To be brutal about it, it might not have mattered to Macnaghten that Druitt was a gentile and Englishman if the man had shown himself to have been so outside of the mainstream of English society through some unmentionable vice.

Best regards

Chris

Rob House
August 29th, 2011, 10:50 AM
Let's get back to the original question, which was whether "sexual maniac" as applied by Macnaghten meant homosexual. The answer to that question is that it doesn't, not at least as far as the definition provided by Macnaghten goes. A "sexual maniac" was someone who killed for pleasure and had no conventional motive that the public expected at that time.

The original question was whether the term "sexual insanity" meant homosexual, not the term sexual maniac. Every time Macnaghten uses the term "sexual maniac" he is referring to the Ripper, not to Druitt. Yes, he may have been thinking Druitt when he said this, but unless he had proof that Druitt killed for sexual pleasure, I doubt he would have used the term "sexual maniac" in the sense of a person who kills for pleasure. The Macnaghten memorandum is what we are discussing is it not? In it, Macnaghten lists 4 facts that (in his mind) support the theory that Druitt was the Ripper. 1) he disappeared after the Kelly murder 2) he committed suicide shortly after the Kelly murder 3) he was sexually insane and 4) his family had suspicions he was the killer.

Again, Macnaghten never refers to Druitt as a sexual maniac.

The term mania was a subcategory of insanity, and while I do not believe that Macnaghten was qualified to make such distinctions about categories of insanity, he clearly had an idea of what a sexual maniac was, since he defines the term specifically. I also assume he had a layman's understanding of the Victorian-era definition of sexual insanity... which basically included just about anything that was considered aberrant behavior in the Victorian era.

RH

Paul
August 29th, 2011, 11:22 AM
Hi Stephen et al.

One would hope that Macnaghten was not that stupid, or rather misled, about what he was looking at in terms of Druitt's candidacy. But it's possible, I fear, that the notion, say, that Druitt was driven to go with low East End women or had some other vice connected to the East End plus some idea in his family that he could have been the killer, combined with the overarching and, I am afraid eternally damning, reality that he died at the right time to have been the killer, to make him Jack the Ripper in Macnaghten's mind. And while Jonathan Hainsworth argues strongly that Macnaghten fully investigated Druitt, we don't know that. In fact, if we go by the wording of the famous Memorandum, Macnaghten displays only a skimpy knowledge of the man in telling us that Druitt was "said to be a doctor & of good family" which gives us no reassurance that he looked deeply into the man or his background. Jonathan's argument is that as a fellow gentile Englishman, Macnaghten would not have chosen Druitt as his candidate to have been the Ripper unless he was certain he was the killer, yet could it be more that Sir Melville was so certain of the suspect's depravity that he became equally certain of Druitt's guilt? To be brutal about it, it might not have mattered to Macnaghten that Druitt was a gentile and Englishman if the man had shown himself to have been so outside of the mainstream of English society through some unmentionable vice.

Best regards

Chris

Anything is possible, Chris. It's all speculation though.

Paul
August 29th, 2011, 11:58 AM
The original question was whether the term "sexual insanity" meant homosexual, not the term sexual maniac. Every time Macnaghten uses the term "sexual maniac" he is referring to the Ripper, not to Druitt. Yes, he may have been thinking Druitt when he said this, but unless he had proof that Druitt killed for sexual pleasure, I doubt he would have used the term "sexual maniac" in the sense of a person who kills for pleasure. The Macnaghten memorandum is what we are discussing is it not? In it, Macnaghten lists 4 facts that (in his mind) support the theory that Druitt was the Ripper. 1) he disappeared after the Kelly murder 2) he committed suicide shortly after the Kelly murder 3) he was sexually insane and 4) his family had suspicions he was the killer.

Again, Macnaghten never refers to Druitt as a sexual maniac.

The term mania was a subcategory of insanity, and while I do not believe that Macnaghten was qualified to make such distinctions about categories of insanity, he clearly had an idea of what a sexual maniac was, since he defines the term specifically. I also assume he had a layman's understanding of the Victorian-era definition of sexual insanity... which basically included just about anything that was considered aberrant behavior in the Victorian era.

RH

Hi Rob,
I am beginning to regret posting to JTRForums about this, but if you want to suppose that "sexually insane" and "sexual maniac" mean different things, one being reserved for Druitt and the other for Jack the Ripper, even though Macnaghten thought they were one and the same, then that's fine. And Macnaghten would have described Druitt as killing for pleasure, even without proof that he did so, because that is precisely what he thought of the Camden Town murderer, whose identity was never established.

SPE
August 29th, 2011, 01:22 PM
I don't think that there is a clear cut answer to this question.

I have to admit that I had always thought, bearing in mind the Victorian way of stating such things in a circumspect way, that 'sexually insane' was likely to mean homosexual. Paul, of course, makes some good points and points out, correctly, that if he is referring to Druitt as the Ripper then you cannot really separate the two descriptions of 'sexually insane' and 'sexual maniac' nor can you ignore similar cases cited in Macnaghten's Days of My Years.

However, also in the Ripper chapter his book, Macnaghten is careful to say, 'The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms, as will be shown later on in other cases.'

When we move on to Macnaghten's chapter describing the Cream murders and the Camden Town murder he states, 'Both of these murders were committed by sexual maniacs, - by men who killed for the joy of killing, - but their types were wholly different.'

He then qualifies this further by stating, 'As I have said before, when writing of the Whitechapel murders, such madness takes Protean forms.' So he is emphasising that whilst they share a 'joy of killing' the form of the madness varied. Protean means 'variable, versatile, taking many forms.' Macnagthen's use of a capital 'P' in the word protean indicates that he is aware the word is based on the marine deity, Proteus, who had the faculty of assuming different shapes at will, remarkable for changefulness of form. Indeed, the Victorian definition of 'Protean' was 'readily assuming different shapes.'

So whilst the two other cases of 'sexual mania' described by Macnaghten did not involve homosexuality, I feel we must allow the possibilty that a 'Protean form' of sexual madness could, in Macnaghten's view, include homosexual behaviour. There is no certain answer.

Paul
August 29th, 2011, 01:59 PM
I don't think that there is a clear cut answer to this question.

I have to admit that I had always thought, bearing in mind the Victorian way of stating such things in a circumspect way, that 'sexually insane' was likely to mean homosexual. Paul, of course, makes some good points and points out, correctly, that if he is referring to Druitt as the Ripper then you cannot really separate the two descriptions of 'sexually insane' and 'sexual maniac' nor can you ignore similar cases cited in Macnaghten's Days of My Years.

However, also in the Ripper chapter his book, Macnaghten is careful to say, 'The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms, as will be shown later on in other cases.'

When we move on to Macnaghten's chapter describing the Cream murders and the Camden Town murder he states, 'Both of these murders were committed by sexual maniacs, - by men who killed for the joy of killing, - but their types were wholly different.'

He then qualifies this further by stating, 'As I have said before, when writing of the Whitechapel murders, such madness takes Protean forms.' So he is emphasising that whilst they share a 'joy of killing' the form of the madness varied. Protean means 'variable, versatile, taking many forms.' Macnagthen's use of a capital 'P' in the word protean indicates that he is aware the word is based on the marine deity, Proteus, who had the faculty of assuming different shapes at will, remarkable for changefulness of form. Indeed, the Victorian definition of 'Protean' was 'readily assuming different shapes.'

So whilst the two other cases of 'sexual mania' described by Macnaghten did not involve homosexuality, I feel we must allow the possibilty that a 'Protean form' of sexual madness could, in Macnaghten's view, include homosexual behaviour. There is no certain answer.

Hi Stewart,
Yes, precisely. What Macnaghten seems to be saying - well, what Macnaghten does say - is that over-indulgence in vices can in some cases lead to a blood lust (otherwise "sexual mania") and killing for the joy of it. Whilst the end result - "motiveless murder" - is the same, the causes of it can be different, as can how it manifests itself. The vices, of course can be anything - homosexuality, child molestation, and so on. And I hope all is well with your goodself. Nothing much is different this end!
Paul

SPE
August 29th, 2011, 02:04 PM
Hi Stewart,
Yes, precisely. What Macnaghten seems to be saying - well, what Macnaghten does say - is that over-indulgence in vices can in some cases lead to a blood lust (otherwise "sexual mania") and killing for the joy of it. Whilst the end result - "motiveless murder" - is the same, the causes of it can be different, as can how it manifests itself. The vices, of course can be anything - homosexuality, child molestation, and so on. And I hope all is well with your goodself. Nothing much is different this end!
Paul

Hi Paul, what a pity that nothing is ever straightforward with these Victorian police officials.

I'm not too bad thanks, usual aches and pains. Busy week last week, filming for two Ripper TV documentaries on Monday and Tuesday (the second in London) and a chap named Skinner came to stay a day or two. Nice bloke, you may have heard of him. All the best, Stewart.

Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
August 29th, 2011, 08:31 PM
Has anybody come across any other homosexual described as sexually insane?

I'll have a look myself tomorrow, but I thought somebody might have researched such a reference already

Winslow and others described the Ripper as being subject to a monomania

Adam Went
August 30th, 2011, 04:08 AM
Hi Paul and all,

Honestly I agree with you that it’s fairly likely Macnaghten was referring to Druitt being a homosexual and/or engaging in homosexual vices, but as he was never more specific and as he was so far off base with so many of his other claims, I wouldn’t be too hasty to say that anything he said was a definite thing. It’s little more than an educated guess on the balance of probability

And IF Druitt was homosexual, and IF Macnaghten was using that in the case against him, then what we can be sure of is that the accusations were made on faulty grounds and that, even if it was the case and it can’t be denied that it’s a possibility, it has no relevance at all to the case for or against Druitt as the killer.

That’s as complex as the phrase “sexually insane” needs to be in reference to Druitt.

Incidentally, Nemo makes a good point about Walter's "My Secret Life" as well, if one wants an insight into Victorian era sexuality and terminology.

Cheers,
Adam.

Chris G.
August 30th, 2011, 09:20 AM
Hi Adam

Paul has usefully quoted what Macnaghten actually said in his writings about his understanding of sexual insanity. We can speculate that personally he also used the term to cover homosexuality. It seems that what Macnaghten wrote publicly indicates that he understood that anyone who committed the types of murders and mutilations that the Ripper did must have been sexually insane because he did them for sexual pleasure (i.e., lust murder). This was a novel idea for a policeman to hold either when he wrote the Memorandum in 1894 or when he wrote his memoirs, Days of My Years, published in 1914. I think he is to be congratulated in taking this enlightened view, apparently based on his understanding of the latest thinking of experts such as Krafft-Ebing, though he doesn't credit them. One reason that I cited the opinions of Littlechild and Dr. Howard A. Kelly, which seem to come from a similar understanding, is that their view of the type of man who did the murders seemed to cover all manner of sexual perversity broader than what Macnaghten seems to have meant in his writings.

Best regards

Chris

Paul
August 30th, 2011, 10:53 AM
Hi Paul and all,

Honestly I agree with you that it’s fairly likely Macnaghten was referring to Druitt being a homosexual and/or engaging in homosexual vices, but as he was never more specific and as he was so far off base with so many of his other claims, I wouldn’t be too hasty to say that anything he said was a definite thing. It’s little more than an educated guess on the balance of probability

And IF Druitt was homosexual, and IF Macnaghten was using that in the case against him, then what we can be sure of is that the accusations were made on faulty grounds and that, even if it was the case and it can’t be denied that it’s a possibility, it has no relevance at all to the case for or against Druitt as the killer.

That’s as complex as the phrase “sexually insane” needs to be in reference to Druitt.

Incidentally, Nemo makes a good point about Walter's "My Secret Life" as well, if one wants an insight into Victorian era sexuality and terminology.

Cheers,
Adam.

Adam,
As said, Macnaghten does not appear to have intended any specific aberrant behaviour by the term "sexual maniac", by which he meant a "motiveless" murderer who killed because he enjoyed killing. He did say that a "sexual maniac" became one as a consequence of over-indulgence in "vices", which could have meant homosexual behaviour or anything else.

Paul
August 30th, 2011, 11:04 AM
Hi Adam

Paul has usefully quoted what Macnaghten actually said in his writings about his understanding of sexual insanity. We can speculate that personally he also used the term to cover homosexuality. It seems that what Macnaghten wrote publicly indicates that he understood that anyone who committed the types of murders and mutilations that the Ripper did must have been sexually insane because he did them for sexual pleasure (i.e., lust murder). This was a novel idea for a policeman to hold either when he wrote the Memorandum in 1894 or when he wrote his memoirs, Days of My Years, published in 1914. I think he is to be congratulated in taking this enlightened view, apparently based on his understanding of the latest thinking of experts such as Krafft-Ebing, though he doesn't credit them. One reason that I cited the opinions of Littlechild and Dr. Howard A. Kelly, which seem to come from a similar understanding, is that their view of the type of man who did the murders seemed to cover all manner of sexual perversity broader than what Macnaghten seems to have meant in his writings.

Best regards

Chris

Chris,
I don't think they meant a broader range of sexual perversity than Macnaghten. Macnaghten said two things, (1) that over-indulgence in "vices" could lead to a blood-lust, and (2) that a "sexual maniac" lacked a conventional motive and killed for the pleasure it provided. Thus, he doesn't indicate the range and variety of sexual perversity or "vices" he had in mind at all.

And his point, of course, is that such motiveless murder wasn't widely or popularly understood outside the police, medical and legal professions (and probably not greatly understood within them, I'd have thought), which is what made them so difficult to detect and prove. It's also what makes it difficult for us, who are very familiar with the phenomena, to really understand the lay, over-simplistic descriptions given by men like Macnaghten, who, whilst knowing it existed and why, may not really have understood it very clearly themselves. But doctors and policemen evidently understood it.

Chris G.
August 30th, 2011, 11:24 AM
Hi Paul

Thanks for clarifying Macnaghten's use of the term "sexual maniac" for Adam and myself once again. Most appreciated.

Chris

Paul
August 30th, 2011, 11:49 AM
Citing Macnaghten's definition of "sexual maniac" again was probably necessary Chris, but whether it was or not it is gratifying to know that it was nonetheless appreciated. However, sadly, I wasn't doing it. I was just pointing out that you said we can speculate on the possibility that by "sexual maniac" Macnaghten included homosexual, which indeed we can, but which he didn't mean. He may have thought homosexuality was a "vice" which led to madness (though as an Old Etonian it's improbable!), and Druitt may have been homosexual, but nothing Macnaghten says allows that inference. And also you said that you mentioned Littlechild and Kelly, whose range of sexual perversity was greater than Macnaghten's (which is badly put, but you know what I mean), which I'd suggest is also untrue given that he refers to them simply as "vices" without giving any indication of what or how many he meant. Both statement seemed to indicate to me that you still had it in mind that "sexual maniac" in itself meant specific aberrant bahviour, rather than an outcome or consequence of it.

Chris G.
August 30th, 2011, 02:13 PM
Both statement seemed to indicate to me that you still had it in mind that "sexual maniac" in itself meant specific aberrant bahviour, rather than an outcome or consequence of it.

Hi Paul

Not to make an issue of this, isn't this rather a cart and horse discussion? Also despite Rob House parsing the meaning of "sexually insane" and "sexual maniac" aren't they in reality the same thing? It would seem to me that Macnaghten thought that the murders had to have been done by somebody who was unbalanced or insane and that they had a sexual motive. I believe that is what you wrote going by your expressed interpretation of his writings in your posts in this thread, correct?

As I see it, the indications are that the idea of the day as expressed by Littlechild and Kelly was that the insanity came from some unmentioned or unmentionable sexual behavior that led to the lust murder. Although I have to say that from our perspective today that notion sounds rickety and outdated. It would seem more likely to me that the sexual vice was the release the murderer received in doing murder and mutilation not whatever lesser perceived vice these guys thought might have led to the murder, which seems to me faulty psychological theory much like the idea that smoking marijuana leads to heroin addiction.

All the best

Chris

Jeff Leahy
August 30th, 2011, 02:25 PM
which seems to me faulty psychological theory much like the idea that smoking marijuana leads to heroin addiction.

All the best
Chris

Some might argue its the other way around. Modern Marijuana;s are so strong that psychosis is often considered a worse problem than heroin in its pure form.

Lets face it no ones ever been murdered by someone high on heroin, only people trying to score the drug are dangerous.

Marijuana psychosis is a major social problem.
Yours Jeff

Phil Carter
August 30th, 2011, 04:56 PM
Lets face it no ones ever been murdered by someone high on heroin....

errr... are you sure about that Jeff?


kindly

Phil

Jeff Leahy
August 30th, 2011, 04:59 PM
errr... are you sure about that Jeff?


kindly

Phil

I cant give it as an absolute...but have you ever seen someone high on heronin?

They're basically out of it in an internal dream world, pretty harmless :becky:

Heronin is an opiate

Yours Jeff

Adam Went
August 31st, 2011, 02:46 AM
Indeed, thanks to both Chris G and Paul for your insights into Macnaghten and his terminology. Very useful and sensible.

Once again we are left lamenting the fact that Macnaghten wasn't more specific in stating who or what he got his alleged information from.

I still think that there might have been an element of notoriety or $$$ behind it, particularly the publication of his memoirs in 1914. As I stated on the other Druitt thread, I've researched some Australian newspaper clippings regarding a visit he made here a short time before his retirement and subsequent publication of his memoirs, and he was specifically asked the question about JTR's identity and refused to be drawn on it at all, despite the fact that we now know exactly what his theories were from many years before that.

Maybe the attention was infectious. ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

Paul
August 31st, 2011, 03:51 AM
Hi Paul

Not to make an issue of this, isn't this rather a cart and horse discussion? Also despite Rob House parsing the meaning of "sexually insane" and "sexual maniac" aren't they in reality the same thing? It would seem to me that Macnaghten thought that the murders had to have been done by somebody who was unbalanced or insane and that they had a sexual motive. I believe that is what you wrote going by your expressed interpretation of his writings in your posts in this thread, correct?

As I see it, the indications are that the idea of the day as expressed by Littlechild and Kelly was that the insanity came from some unmentioned or unmentionable sexual behavior that led to the lust murder. Although I have to say that from our perspective today that notion sounds rickety and outdated. It would seem more likely to me that the sexual vice was the release the murderer received in doing murder and mutilation not whatever lesser perceived vice these guys thought might have led to the murder, which seems to me faulty psychological theory much like the idea that smoking marijuana leads to heroin addiction.

All the best

Chris

Hi Chris,
Not wanting to make an issue of this either, but I disagree with Rob's suggestion that "sexually insane" and "sexual maniac" mean different things, thus I think Macnaghten's explanation of “sexual maniac” as someone who lacks the conventional and expected motives and kills for pleasure is applicable to Druitt, from which it is also clear that whilst Macnaghten seems to have thought that the mania evolved from over-indulgence in “vices”, “sexual maniac” clearly wasn't a euphemism for homosexual and cannot be used as evidence that Druitt was homosexual. As for Macnaghten's understanding of the psychology behind this, I'd suggest that he is saying no more than that aberrant behaviour can escalate as the excitement derived from 'a' pales and one moves on to 'b', then 'c' and so on until ultimately to murder and mutilation. Doesn't that thinking still underlay our understanding of many serial killers and such today?

Paul
August 31st, 2011, 03:56 AM
Indeed, thanks to both Chris G and Paul for your insights into Macnaghten and his terminology. Very useful and sensible.

Once again we are left lamenting the fact that Macnaghten wasn't more specific in stating who or what he got his alleged information from.

I still think that there might have been an element of notoriety or $$$ behind it, particularly the publication of his memoirs in 1914. As I stated on the other Druitt thread, I've researched some Australian newspaper clippings regarding a visit he made here a short time before his retirement and subsequent publication of his memoirs, and he was specifically asked the question about JTR's identity and refused to be drawn on it at all, despite the fact that we now know exactly what his theories were from many years before that.

Maybe the attention was infectious. ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

Adam,
He refused to be drawn "before his retirement" but aired clearly personal and non-specific conclusions after he'd retired and was no longer an official representative of the Met. That probably supplies your answer about his refusal to be drawn.

Rob House
August 31st, 2011, 05:19 PM
I don't mean to be overly argumentative here, but I still do not really understand your position Paul.

The memorandum was an internal police document, an official document if you will. It was not a memoir or anything like that. In it Macnaghten states:

"I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:"

This clearly means that these were three suspects... but that none of them was known to have been the killer. At least this is the context in which the above statement is made.

He then lists:

"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

You are saying that "sexually insane" meant that he "killed for the joy of killing." If you simply substitute that definition in the context of the above statement, it makes the entirety of the memorandum quite absurd. For example:

"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was a man who killed for the joy of killing and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

Is this really what you are claiming that Macnaghten meant by using the phrase "sexually insane" in this context.

Respectfully,
Rob House

Adam Went
August 31st, 2011, 05:38 PM
Paul:

Well as I mentioned, when he toured Australia, he was as good as retired from the force - in fact if I remember rightly he virtually returned from his trip and then made it official. Furthermore it was decades after the fact and there wasn't even so much as a hint, along the lines of "we did have our suspicions but were unable to find evidence to support an arrest."

Besides, we know that privately he was more than willing to communicate with others about his theories relating to the case.

Perhaps i'm being cynical - and I don't have the Australian press reports on hand to illustrate my point, though I will try to dig them up again at some point - but it just reeks of personal glory/$$$ to me. Just my opinion though.

Cheers,
Adam.

SPE
August 31st, 2011, 06:17 PM
...
This clearly means that these were three suspects... but that none of them was known to have been the killer. At least this is the context in which the above statement is made.
He then lists:
"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."
You are saying that "sexually insane" meant that he "killed for the joy of killing." If you simply substitute that definition in the context of the above statement, it makes the entirety of the memorandum quite absurd. For example:
"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was a man who killed for the joy of killing and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."
Is this really what you are claiming that Macnaghten meant by using the phrase "sexually insane" in this context.
Respectfully,
Rob House

What Macnaghten wrote was, clearly, subjective and based on his own knowledge of Druitt and the suspicions harboured by others about him (as far as they went) and his own interpretation.

But, I think that you make a good point here Rob, because the 'sexually insane' description is applied here to Druitt in 1894 and he is described as suspected only (with no hard evidence against him) and not as a known maniac. Therefore, as you say, he was not known in 1894 to actually be a sexual maniac killing for pleasure. This, of course, would also account for the softer 'sexually insane' description being used.

Many years later, of course, Macnaghten's suspicions seem to have hardened and he appears to have convinced himself that Druitt was a sexual maniac who killed for the joy of killing. I fear this is another point of contention upon which no consensus of opinion will be reached.

Cris Malone
August 31st, 2011, 11:16 PM
I agree. Contemporaneous text, such as what was cited by me earlier in this thread by Edward Mann, does not suggest that 'sexual insanity' included murder for sexual gratification, but simply an abhorrent sexual proclivity of some form. In 1894, Macnaghten seems be referring to one of the conditions that made Druitt a candidate for a 'lust murderer'.

What form of 'sexual insanity' he had in mind is, indeed, not specified. Macnaghten may not have known exactly what condition of 'sexual insanity' Druitt was supposed to have possessed. Considering the inaccuracies, he may have gotten all of this information second hand or by hearsay, without specific details. In his draft document ( Yes, I believe that is what it was) he says merely 'alleged' to be sexually insane. He drops the alleged from the official document, but that may be an effort to give it more weight; something more definitive.

He plays fast and loose with such terms.

Besides what he suggests for the path to lunacy for Kosminski, he describes Ostrog as a 'homicidal lunatic', but if he had studied Ostrog's record, he would have known that the man displayed no real homicidal traits and there were several police officials involved with Ostrog who believed he was faking lunacy. There's no evidence that Ostrog had any medical training; rather that he was a charlatan posing in that profession. Either Macnaghten was unaware of Ostrog's record or he was padding the bill to make him more plausible. Both are reprehensible if proposing someone as a candidate for a serial murderer. And, I don't believe for one minute he was throwing Ostrog in as filler. He had made inquiries about him as soon as he joined the Met Police.

He also said 'many homicidal maniacs were suspected.'

Ironically, he inadvertently makes a better case for Cutbush to be 'sexually insane' than for the conditions asserted in his three suspects.

Paul
September 1st, 2011, 12:36 AM
I don't mean to be overly argumentative here, but I still do not really understand your position Paul.

The memorandum was an internal police document, an official document if you will. It was not a memoir or anything like that. In it Macnaghten states:

"I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:"

This clearly means that these were three suspects... but that none of them was known to have been the killer. At least this is the context in which the above statement is made.

He then lists:

"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

You are saying that "sexually insane" meant that he "killed for the joy of killing." If you simply substitute that definition in the context of the above statement, it makes the entirety of the memorandum quite absurd. For example:

"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was a man who killed for the joy of killing and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

Is this really what you are claiming that Macnaghten meant by using the phrase "sexually insane" in this context.

Respectfully,
Rob House

Rob,
Forgive me, but I'm really not up to getting involved in a debate about what initially was simply my attempt to be helpful by pointing out how Macnagten defined “sexual maniac”. I did not expect to become embroiled in what appears to me to be an improbable proposition that “sexual maniac” is not interchangeable with sexually insane, still less to find myself expected to defend one or other position. I am open and happy to be persuaded that “sexually insane” meant something else, but as yet I haven't seen a persuasive argument that that was the case. As for your substitution of “He was a man who killed for the joy of killing...” for “sexually insane”, I think you are applying too narrow or a too precise definition to a term which, at least as far as Macnaghten's definition of “sexual maniac” is concerned, means no more than the general concept of somebody who killed without the usual and expected motives, a phenomena Macnaghten said was largely beyond the comprehension of people outside the legal and medical professions of the time. He was trying with gentlemanly delicacy to explain that some murders were committed by people who derived pleasure and satisfaction from blood, killing, and, I assume from his citing of Nero and Eastern potentates watching slaves killed or torn apart by animals, from the infliction of pain and the sight of suffering. So, if you want to insert, “He was a man who liked the sight of pain and suffering and from private information I have little doubt...” then you might be a little nearer to what Macnaghten was trying to say about Druitt.

Paul

SPE
September 1st, 2011, 03:19 AM
I think that both Paul and Rob make valid points, which only emphasises my view that no consensus of opinion is likely to be reached on this vexed issue.

It is, perhaps, worth noting that no other police officer, other than Macnaghten, ever suggested that Druitt was the Ripper. In the 'Aberconway version' Macnaghten states 'it was alleged that he was sexually insane.' This is indicative of Macnaghten's information being only hearsay and lacking substantive proof. He also indicates that his belief in this solution developed, as opposed from being formed at the outset, when he states, 'Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2, but I have always held strong opinions regarding no 1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjections be correct.'

I think that this clearly illustrates Macnaghten's subjectivity on the matter of Druitt's guilt, his lack of any evidence, and the gradual development of his belief.

As far as Macnaghten's information is concerned, we do not know its precise nature and we do not know its exact source. But given what he said it is clearly, at best, only hearsay. There is no evidence whatsoever to confirm Macnaghten's statement that Druitt was 'sexually insane', nor to indicate why he believed that. We have no surviving record of any sort of offence, violent, assaulting women, homosexual acts, etc., whatever, by Druitt.

It, therefore, appears that Macnaghten was writing from second hand information only, based on the belief of another/others that Druitt was insane and not backed by any incriminating evidence. That is the best we have. Whatever conclusions are reached from this basic information are, really, pretty weak. And, unfortunately, Macnaghten chose not to share his 'private information' with history, thus leaving the field free for speculation and theorising. There must also be the possibility, accepting that the 'Aberconway version' of his memorandum was a draft, that he later added to it as it remained in his possession and was not destroyed when he retired.

SPE
September 1st, 2011, 03:41 AM
...
He was trying with gentlemanly delicacy to explain that some murders were committed by people who derived pleasure and satisfaction from blood, killing, and, I assume from his citing of Nero and Eastern potentates watching slaves killed or torn apart by animals, from the infliction of pain and the sight of suffering. So, if you want to insert, “He was a man who liked the sight of pain and suffering and from private information I have little doubt...” then you might be a little nearer to what Macnaghten was trying to say about Druitt.
Paul

I think that it is the very imprecise and 'delicate' prose of Macnaghten that really confuses the issue and leaves his words open to more than one interpretation.

If we look at Littlechild's words, significantly of the same vintage as Macnaghten's (1913), then we may see a different interpretation is possible. In respect of homosexual acts Littlechild cites two cases of high-profile apparent bi-sexuals, Oscar Wilde and Harry Thaw. Littlechild states, 'It is very strange how those given to "Contrary sexual instinct" and degenerates" are given to cruelty, even Wilde liked to be punched about.' In respect of Thaw he stated the case of Thaw indulging in sadistic cruelty on a hotel call boy whom Thaw had strip, strapped to the bed and thrashed (drawing blood), afterwards making the boy get into a bath containing salty water.

It could be thus hypothesised that Druitt's dismissal from Valentine's school for 'serious trouble' may have been such acts with a schoolboy(s) and that Macnaghten had been told the exact nature of his dismissal. This question might be resolved, one way or the other, one day, if Valentine's papers are found and if they mention the matter.

Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
September 1st, 2011, 04:33 AM
I was going to suggest that Stewart

I was thinking if his sexual deviancy had something to do with his dismissal, it might have been a penchant for spanking or flagellation, which he may have exhibited at the school in some manner

Paul
September 1st, 2011, 05:40 AM
I think that it is the very imprecise and 'delicate' prose of Macnaghten that really confuses the issue and leaves his words open to more than one interpretation.

If we look at Littlechild's words, significantly of the same vintage as Macnaghten's (1913), then we may see a different interpretation is possible. In respect of homosexual acts Littlechild cites two cases of high-profile apparent bi-sexuals, Oscar Wilde and Harry Thaw. Littlechild states, 'It is very strange how those given to "Contrary sexual instinct" and degenerates" are given to cruelty, even Wilde liked to be punched about.' In respect of Thaw he stated the case of Thaw indulging in sadistic cruelty on a hotel call boy whom Thaw had strip, strapped to the bed and thrashed (drawing blood), afterwards making the boy get into a bath containing salty water.

It could be thus hypothesised that Druitt's dismissal from Valentine's school for 'serious trouble' may have been such acts with a schoolboy(s) and that Macnaghten had been told the exact nature of his dismissal. This question might be resolved, one way or the other, one day, if Valentine's papers are found and if they mention the matter.

Hi Stewart,
I have to say that I don't think Macnaghten confuses the issue at all, really, but is quite clear in what he is trying to say, which, as already said, was to make clear to readers for whom he believed it was an alien concept, that some murders lack the traditional motives, and that people who over-indulge in sexual "vices" develop a mania for blood.

Littlechild attributes such a blood lust to bi-sexuals. Macnaghten cites as a historic example the debauched Nero, to whom Seutonius attributes all manner of bi-sexual perversions and obscenities. However, you can say better than I whether Neil Cream was bi-sexual or homosexual, and I assume the sexuality of the unidentified Camden Town murderer wasn't known at all, so I am concluding that “motiveless” murder was not thought to be a peccadillo reserved for homosexuals, but could be the outcome of many or all aberrant sexual behaviour. Thus "sexual maniac" is not a euphemism for homosexual.

SPE
September 1st, 2011, 09:06 AM
Hi Stewart,
I have to say that I don't think Macnaghten confuses the issue at all, really, but is quite clear in what he is trying to say, which, as already said, was to make clear to readers for whom he believed it was an alien concept, that some murders lack the traditional motives, and that people who over-indulge in sexual "vices" develop a mania for blood.
Littlechild attributes such a blood lust to bi-sexuals. Macnaghten cites as a historic example the debauched Nero, to whom Seutonius attributes all manner of bi-sexual perversions and obscenities. However, you can say better than I whether Neil Cream was bi-sexual or homosexual, and I assume the sexuality of the unidentified Camden Town murderer wasn't known at all, so I am concluding that “motiveless” murder was not thought to be a peccadillo reserved for homosexuals, but could be the outcome of many or all aberrant sexual behaviour. Thus "sexual maniac" is not a euphemism for homosexual.

Hi Paul, the 'sexually insane' phrase was used in the Macnaghten report (memorandum) of 1894 whereas in his 1914 book, a full twenty years later, Macnaghten states, 'The man of course, was a sexual maniac...' and, in his chapter on 'Motiveless Murders', he describes Cream and the Camden town murderer as 'sexual maniacs' and enlarges on the 'Protean forms' that such madness takes.

He further comments that 'an excessive indulgence in vice leads, in certain cases, to a craving for blood.' Thus he suggests that 'Nero was probably a sexual maniac', and, as you cite, 'Eastern potentates in all ages, who loved to see slaves slaughtered' etc. Macnaghten was writing with a full twenty years of experience, reading and thinking on sexual mania behind him, since his 1894 comments. And whilst not citing a specific case of homosexual 'killing for blood lust' he did state that such mania took 'Protean' (many different) forms. So I do not see that homosexual sadism can be ruled out of the equation when assessing what he meant by 'sexually insane' in 1894.

Of course he believed that such murder would be an alien concept to his general readers, he said as much, believing that only professionals such as lawyers, doctors and police officers, who actually encountered it, would realise that 'sexual mania' even existed. Personally I think that he would be wrong there, given all the publicity such killers as Vacher (and the Ripper for that matter) had been given in the press in past years.

But all I have argued here, is that when Macnaghten alluded to Druitt being 'sexually insane' in 1894 there must be a possibility that he was referring to sadistic homosexual activity at his school. That's all, a possibility. We have no proof either way. I don't think that I (or anyone else) have suggested that motiveless murder was, or was thought to be, confined to homosexuals. Such a suggestion, of course, would be silly.

Nor have I suggested, nor do I think, that 'sexual maniac' was a 'euphemism for homosexual', that again would be silly and patently wrong. I do, however, think that his use of the softer description 'sexually insane' in 1894 could relate, as I have said, to certain homosexual activity. And I cited Littlechild's remarks on such aberrant behaviour as Littlechild was Macnaghten's contemporary, a police officer, and also interested in such matters.

Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
September 1st, 2011, 10:43 AM
So far, I've only found modern references to being sexually insane, and practically all are referring to an insatiability such as promiscuity, hypersexuality, satyriasis or nymphomania as well as compulsive masturbation, but not homosexuality per se, though one writer referred to Alan Turing as sexually insane to denote the attitude of the law toward homosexuals at the time (1950's)

Turing was convicted of homosexuality and underwent chemical castration in preference to imprisonment, later committing suicide

SPE
September 1st, 2011, 03:22 PM
So far, I've only found modern references to being sexually insane, and practically all are referring to an insatiability such as promiscuity, hypersexuality, satyriasis or nymphomania as well as compulsive masturbation, but not homosexuality per se, though one writer referred to Alan Turing as sexually insane to denote the attitude of the law toward homosexuals at the time (1950's)

Turing was convicted of homosexuality and underwent chemical castration in preference to imprisonment, later committing suicide

Yes, I don't think that modern references are going to help us much. It's all down to Macnaghten's wording and whether or not he would refer to it in such a way.

Paul
September 1st, 2011, 03:38 PM
Hi Paul, the 'sexually insane' phrase was used in the Macnaghten report (memorandum) of 1894 whereas in his 1914 book, a full twenty years later, Macnaghten states, 'The man of course, was a sexual maniac...' and, in his chapter on 'Motiveless Murders', he describes Cream and the Camden town murderer as 'sexual maniacs' and enlarges on the 'Protean forms' that such madness takes.

He further comments that 'an excessive indulgence in vice leads, in certain cases, to a craving for blood.' Thus he suggests that 'Nero was probably a sexual maniac', and, as you cite, 'Eastern potentates in all ages, who loved to see slaves slaughtered' etc. Macnaghten was writing with a full twenty years of experience, reading and thinking on sexual mania behind him, since his 1894 comments. And whilst not citing a specific case of homosexual 'killing for blood lust' he did state that such mania took 'Protean' (many different) forms. So I do not see that homosexual sadism can be ruled out of the equation when assessing what he meant by 'sexually insane' in 1894.

Of course he believed that such murder would be an alien concept to his general readers, he said as much, believing that only professionals such as lawyers, doctors and police officers, who actually encountered it, would realise that 'sexual mania' even existed. Personally I think that he would be wrong there, given all the publicity such killers as Vacher (and the Ripper for that matter) had been given in the press in past years.

But all I have argued here, is that when Macnaghten alluded to Druitt being 'sexually insane' in 1894 there must be a possibility that he was referring to sadistic homosexual activity at his school. That's all, a possibility. We have no proof either way. I don't think that I (or anyone else) have suggested that motiveless murder was, or was thought to be, confined to homosexuals. Such a suggestion, of course, would be silly.

Nor have I suggested, nor do I think, that 'sexual maniac' was a 'euphemism for homosexual', that again would be silly and patently wrong. I do, however, think that his use of the softer description 'sexually insane' in 1894 could relate, as I have said, to certain homosexual activity. And I cited Littlechild's remarks on such aberrant behaviour as Littlechild was Macnaghten's contemporary, a police officer, and also interested in such matters.

Hi Stewart,
I didn't say you'd suggested any of those things, nor did I or do I discount the possibility that Macnaghten meant homosexual sadism.

All I am saying is that whilst Macnaghten attributed the cause of sexual mania to an over-indulgence in sexual "vices" which no doubt included homosexual sadism, "sexual maniac" did not specify any vice in particular, as it couldn't have done since the unidentified Camden Town killer, whose vices Macnaghten could not have known, was cited as one.

The subject of this thread is whether "sexually insane" meant homosexual. I'm saying that it didn't. I am not saying that Druitt wasn't, or that he was, just that the term didn't mean he was.

Bedtime!

Paul

SPE
September 1st, 2011, 03:54 PM
Hi Stewart,
I didn't say you'd suggested any of those things, nor did I or do I discount the possibility that Macnaghten meant homosexual sadism.
All I am saying is that whilst Macnaghten attributed the cause of sexual mania to an over-indulgence in sexual "vices" which no doubt included homosexual sadism, "sexual maniac" did not specify any vice in particular, as it couldn't have done since the unidentified Camden Town killer, whose vices Macnaghten could not have known, was cited as one.
The subject of this thread is whether "sexually insane" meant homosexual. I'm saying that it didn't. I am not saying that Druitt wasn't, or that he was, just that the term didn't mean he was.
Bedtime!
Paul

Hi Paul,

All I was saying is that I feel there is an argument for allowing the possibility that when Macnaghten used the phrase 'sexually insane' in 1894 he could have meant that some homosexual act was involved. I am no more emphatic than that, but I don't totally dismiss it.

We have both stated our opinion on this one and others will, presumably, draw their own conclusions. It certainly would be nice to know the reason for Druitt's dismissal and there must be a real possibility that further information on that may come to light. We have a photograph of Valentine from the family and they are supposed to own some of his papers.

Apropos of the Camden Town murder, I think there was a strong feeling that Robert Wood was actually guilty.

Nighty-night, sleep tight.

Rob House
September 2nd, 2011, 10:30 AM
"I am no more emphatic than that, but I don't totally dismiss it."

I agree with this. In my opinion, it may mean some form of homosexually "deviant" behavior (in the Victorian sense), but it might also mean any form of sexually deviant behavior, including fetishism, sadism, masochism, "satyriasis", etc.

Hello Paul,
Again, I do not agree that "sexual insanity" meant killing for pleasure, however if you broaden this definition to include sadism generally (as you suggested) then I think this may have been Macnaghten's meaning, since sexual sadism would have been understood as sexual insanity in this era. I think we are left simply not knowing what exactly was meant by the term unfortunately.

Nemo,

"So far, I've only found modern references to being sexually insane, and practically all are referring to an insatiability such as promiscuity, hypersexuality, satyriasis or nymphomania as well as compulsive masturbation, but not homosexuality per se..."

As I pointed out earlier, Oscar Wilde asked that his sentence be commuted "on the grounds that he was not criminal, but a man suffering from sexual insanity." I do not unfortunately have access to Wilde's letters, so I can only post the following snippet which I found online:

http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Appendix...y/Robbins.html

"These words mimic, in a very different tone, another letter which Wilde wrote in prison, this time to the Home Secretary. This second letter is humble, scientific and legalistic. Wilde asked for his sentence to be commuted on the grounds that he was not criminal, but a man suffering from sexual insanity. He borrows the register of contemporary sociology and criminology, and insists (as Ackroyd’s Wilde does with satirical intent) that he is a case study, not an evil man. His crimes are ‘diseases to be cured by a physician rather than crimes to be punished by a judge’ (Selected Letters, 142)."

Rob House