Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack of Sound Mind?

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

  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Hi Howard et al

    I've found a reason to be pulling at their innards - supplied by the Theosophists no less (sorry - Occult connection again)

    It will need a new thread rather than one post here I think

    Unfortunately I'll have to post it later as I'm a bit busy at the moment and it takes a bit of explaining

    It involves the killer believing that the soul remains within the carcass until...

    Also the origin of the "Ha Ha", and "Dead or Alive" gets a mention too - along with the wombs and multitudes of black magicians - Donston would be classed as a benificent Superhero!

    Hey Currebell, it includes a bonus connection between the Theosophists and the Brontes!

    Until next time...

    PS I know it all sounds a bit crazy but you'll see....you'll see...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Thanks. Thats exactly my feeling too....and I think its what Jon has been trying to ascertain or at least present arguments for either way ( psychotic, psychopath ) in his articles.
    And good they were, too, How. Like I say, a balanced, informed discourse on such matters is always welcome.
    Same thing with pulling intestines out of women. You can't pull them out without a reason and any reason you had to pull 'em out would be crazy.
    I like your logic, sor!

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Sam:

    Thanks. Thats exactly my feeling too....and I think its what Jon has been trying to ascertain or at least present arguments for either way ( psychotic, psychopath ) in his articles.

    Seriously, changing diapers is no frigging joy. Wanting to change them is a sign of strange behavior. And this guy, JTR, wanted to go to the source with the women.....

    Its like the act of laughing, Sam.

    Try to laugh out loud with passion or sincerity without reason or provocation to do so... . See what I mean... you can't. You'ld have to invent a reason to pretend to laugh without a real reason. You would look crazy to others and feel crazy to yourself. You ain't crazy...but it makes you see how crazy it is to laugh without a reason.

    Same thing with pulling intestines out of women. You can't pull them out without a reason and any reason you had to pull 'em out would be crazy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Thank Christ you mentioned 'Bad Science' there- thought you'd gone all woo on us there for a minute Sam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    You've seen my example...now I'd like to hear your opinion on it.

    Can someone who can willingly murder, pull out intestines, not once, but more than once...be classified as of a sound mind?
    Personally, I'd say he wasn't, How - but which "flavour" of "unsound" he was I wouldn't like to say. That's where all the "Hello! Magazine" speculation comes in: "He might have believed he was on a mission from God, and was therefore schizophrenic"; "He could have been reacting against his oedipal tendencies by destroying women of his mother's age"; "Slashing the face was an act of depersonalisation, therefore he's likely to have known Eddowes/Kelly" ... etc etc. All very entertaining, but none of it provable, and almost all of it just plain Bad Science.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Sam:

    You've seen my example...now I'd like to hear your opinion on it.

    Can someone who can willingly murder, pull out intestines, not once, but more than once...be classified as of a sound mind?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    All kidding aside...

    What are the opinions of other Forums members on the idea Mr. Wood presented earlier about the notion of JTR being of sound mind or, at least, not insane ?

    Thank Ewe..er, you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
    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.
    The difference there, Jon, is that a knowledge of anatomy/biology or some related science at least allows one to be reasonably well-informed. Indeed, one can look up anatomical/biological details on the internet quite easily - no laughing at the back, please! Not that everyone could understand the nitty-gritty details, of course, but at least one can get a grasp of the essentials (and verify them for oneself) when it comes to the more black-and-white sciences.

    Unlike anatomy and physiology (etc), psychiatry/ology isn't quite so precise, however - the problem is that people don't always realise this. One might have bought a second-hand copy of The Interpretation of Dreams, read a few articles in glossy magazines, or Googled some populist psychological buzzword - heck, one might only have seen a couple of Woody Allen films! - on the basis of which it's easy to believe one has found the answer. However, it's quite likely that one has alighted on some outdated populist twaddle which no respectable scientist would touch with a barge-pole. Even if one hasn't, and has instead hit upon some solid research findings, it's all-too tempting to generalise inappropriately.

    That's not to say that informed discussion of such matters can't be stimulating, and I welcome all efforts to dispel misunderstandings relating to the subject. It must be understood that psychological phenomena - unlike their truly physical counterparts - rarely have absolute, linear causes or hard-wired outcomes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Jon:

    Just like earlier, Mikey made me think of lesbians. Something that Stephen said made my thoughts drift...or rather float...into that topic...and since to me, it appears that anyone who would pay EWE to do that to themselves on a phone would seem crazy...I brought 'er up.
    Did someone mention sheep?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    It's because my post contained kinky words like 'mastered' and 'discipline.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Jon:

    Just like earlier, Mikey made me think of lesbians. Something that Stephen said made my thoughts drift...or rather float...into that topic...and since to me, it appears that anyone who would pay YOU to do that to themselves on a phone would seem crazy...I brought 'er up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Stephen:

    ....but you made me think of phone sex.


    Dare we ask where that thought came from?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Funny you should say that How, I've lost count of the amount of times women have told me my best feature is my voice....the thought of doing such a thing as a side venture has entered my head several times

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Stephen:

    Real quick and not real germane to this thread....but you made me think of phone sex.

    If I told you that you could make a lot of money by virtue of getting other people to call you on their phone, masturbate like a maniac in their homes and pay you via credit card as they smacked their schwantzstuka around.... you would think I was kidding or crazy

    ....until you realized I am referring to the phone sex fad of the late 1980's ( Not to tell tales out of class....but Tim Mosley must have paid close to $20,000 for all his phone sessions or so he claims...) .....where some people racked up some serious dosh from that sort of behavior.


    So yeah, old Charley was right....sanity is relative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Jon:

    Observable or otherwise, anyone who could commit murders like that even for some cause ( Fenians, religious nuts, etc..) other than for himself would have other issues other than his inclination to remove women's internal organs.

    He could mask them, certainly. He would still have them.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X