Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack of Sound Mind?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I'd run with that assessment as well

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Dear Stephen;
    As Manson himself said in 1970 when asked if he was insane, he responded rather sanely, "Thats relative".
    I would think Manson is warped, capable of murder ( He has one under his belt) , capable of manipulating lazy, impressionable, bourgeois kids with hippie-pansy bullshit masking devilish intentions...and completely aware of what he is,did, and can do.
    No. I don't see him as insane. Just very fa-hucked up in the head...

    Leave a comment:


  • Big Jon
    replied
    Stephen:

    I do see Sam's point and I agree with what he is saying. I just happened to share a similar problem I see with the whole discussion as the one he has.

    The same can also be said with any discussions had on the physiology of the crimes because (as far as I'm aware) we don't have anyone on these boards with advanced training in pathology.

    How:

    I don't think he would have had any observable mental issues, but beyond that - who knows!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Sam makes a really valid point Jon that you're missing- I found a ludicrous thread on here the other night where someone was trying to determine whether Charles Manson was sane or insane. I said, "Is there anyone here who is actually qualifed to comment on this?" No takers as yet.
    There's huge amounts of speculative guff on these boards and others, being farted out by people who haven't necessarilly mastered the English language yet, let alone whatever particular discipline is required to have a meaningful dialogue on a subject.
    For now Jon, all you're doing is saying, "Well if people can speculate on what Jack had for breakfast, I have every right to speculate to." But that's not an argument, that's a bit of a whinge if you don't mind me saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Jon:

    He had tarts for supper, I can tell you that much.

    Anyone that can stick his hand inside another person's intestines, deal with the dreadful odors, and then walk away without flinching...and do it more than once... is frigging nuts and you don't need a PhD to figure that out.

    Whether he was psychotic or psychopathic, to me, is one of the only two questions I see in this matter... the other being how anyone of us can consider that the acts of the Ripper...whether for some reason other than a sexually based motive...was playing with a full deck.

    I'm curious as to whether any of us who dispute the sanity of the Ripper when we look at his actions also feel that outside of mutilating women on the street, that he had no other mental issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    That aside, my real beef is with lay-people flogging theories to other lay-people on the basis of a superficial understanding of what is a complex, multi-faceted and - by its very nature - abstract subject.
    If we're talking about real beefs with lay people - mine is with people using terms such as psychopath to basically mean "someone who kills someone else".

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
    at the end of the day I think discussions about any mental condition Jack might have had are a lot more valid than a lot of other things that get discussed (the posts debating what Jack had for breakfast which pop up on Casebook immediately jump to mind).
    Unfortunately, Jon, unless one truly understands mental conditions and/or psychology, such discussions are often about as much use as those about Jack's breakfast habits. That aside, my real beef is with non-psychologists flogging theories to lay-people on the basis of a superficial understanding of what is a complex, multi-faceted and - by its very nature - abstruse subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • Big Jon
    replied
    A valid point Sam, but there are other aspects of the case that it applies to (it can be argued that even discussing his identity can be at best an intellectual diversion), and at the end of the day I think discussions about any mental condition Jack might have had are a lot more valid than a lot of other things that get discussed (the posts debating what Jack had for breakfast which pop up on Casebook immediately jump to mind).

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
    My main response is: surely we can theorise? Yes we may never know for certain, but we can look at the known facts and apply them to psychological conditions to see if it's possible Jack fits into these categories. Examine the what if, but with care.
    True, Jon, but most people don't know what an appropriate use of psychology would entail. The fundamental problem of "analysing at a distance" is that we'll never be able to get Jack on the couch, so such efforts are at best an interesting diversion. Trouble is, when misapplied, it can become a means of giving a dodgy theory a false veneer of intellectual integrity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Big Jon
    replied
    Hi Simon,

    As someone who often spouts and discusses said rubbish, I feel compelled to respond. Firstly, can it be noted that the wise words do not come from a Psychologist or Psychiatrist but from a lawyer.

    My main response is: surely we can theorise? Yes we may never know for certain, but we can look at the known facts and apply them to psychological conditions to see if it's possible Jack fits into these categories. Examine the what if, but with care.

    To speak personally, in any article or post when I attempt to analyse the Ripper, I always make it quite clear that it is just the opinion of an aspiring student, and that nothing should be taken as gospel as we may never know the truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Hi Nemo,

    Good to hear from you.

    I am to psychology what Michaelangelo was to spot-welding, so I have no idea about what these learned men may have truly meant.

    I can only repeat their words—

    "The chief source of error in the investigation of lunacy is a tendency of medical experts to infer disease from the nature of the crime itself. The Whitechapel murderer has not been caught, and his condition can not therefore be diagnosed."

    So let's all stop trying to psychoanalyze Jack, a person who never existed in the first place.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    "of Sound mind" - Hmmmmm...

    Does he mean his outward appearance was of a sane person - ie not an obvious raving lunatic, or, and I am very interested in this aspect, was he imagining a sane man who dweelled on murder, cruelty and "barbarism"?

    Interesting stuff about the Ripper's skills and the possibility of an international killer

    Very nice post Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest started a topic Jack of Sound Mind?

    Jack of Sound Mind?

    Hi All,

    Because so much ill-informed rubbish has been spouted about the psychopathy of Jack the Ripper, I don't know if this is the right place for the following. All I know is that I found this newspaper cutting a breath of fresh air.

    It's from the Galveston Daily News, 15th December 1888—

    http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/a...520DEC2018.jpg


    "The chief source of error in the investigation of lunacy is a tendency of medical experts to infer disease from the nature of the crime itself. The Whitechapel murderer has not been caught, and his condition can not therefore be diagnosed."

    Wise words.

    Regards,

    Simon
Working...
X