|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Author: nick wise
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 01:04 pm |        | I have recently started reading the threads in this case book,and I have this misgiving,that the 'Ripper'victims ,are ill served by this morbid parlour game of 'hunt the Ripper.'
When viewed in the context of the wretched lives they endured ,and the tragic and violent nature of their death ,do they not deserve at least a modicum of respect in death,do ripperrologists spend any time tending their graves,is any money that is made from the cottage industry that profits from their death given to charity?
Should the death of an individual be the focus for what appears to be a hobby,I feel the answer should be a resounding NO! |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 01:40 pm | | Nick,
I think that in general the victims are given a considerable degree of respect. The lives of the victims are as interesting to many of us as the speculation regarding their killer. Neal Sheldon's book on the life of Annie Chapman was one of the most moving documents on the case I have ever read.
I'm not sure in what way you feel that they are ill treated. Could you elaborate on that?
I'm not sure where the profits from the "cottage industry" go, but in general I think you'd be suprised to see just how little money is made by the majority of the authors writing on the JtR case.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Neal Shelden
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 04:34 pm | | Hi Nick,
I agree with John in that more than ever before the victims are now given the respect they deserve by the majority of the people interested in the Jack the Ripper murders.
My opinion has always been that the most respect I can pay to these women is to tell their story. After all, none of us can prevent their terrible deaths now, and almost all of the books in recent years have given details about their lives to some extent.
But also, we musn't get to the point whereby writers feel that they have got to give information about the victims lives in their books.
John,
Thanks for the words about the Annie book.
Best wishes.
Neal |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 08:08 pm | | Nick,
What profit? What disrespect?
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 09:27 pm | | | Mr Wise: With all due respect to your opinion,the unfortunate women are,at least in my opinion,recieving more respect and consideration than they did in life,here at Casebook. Its true that each of the great researchers and authors are trying to discover the culprit,which would give them eternal fame. Mr.Shelden,for example,makes it a habit of reminding us all of the dates of demise of the women with a heartfelt tribute. On his own. All for free. Totally from the heart. If Mr.Evans or Mr.Edwards did bring closure to the case,would that not be the best of all possible worlds? 21st Century people solving an 19th Century tragedy? Its from the heart,Nick,not the pocket,my friend !!!! HB |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 07:50 am | | | Perhaps hashing this case over will provide some insight into the nature of SK's and crime itself. JTR was not the only SK to go after prostitutes. It seems that even today they are a favorite target of those who kill. The why is fairly obvious -- vulnerability. Is there a way to break that cycle? If we learn something that could help . . . I think that all women are safer today because of the advent of the cell phone, and rapists cannot deny what they have done anymore because of DNA. |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 11:57 am | | Dear All
One of the things that keeps occuring in my mind ,as a result of studying this case, is that some things never change,
Drugs , Prostitution , poverty ,il-health , protection rackets ,are all still with us dispite 115 Years of Politicians from all parties trying to eradicate them.
So what's the answer?,I'm afraid I don't know,but I do know what the questions are!
Perhaps this is a lasting legacy to the victims , that people are aware of the plight of less fortunate members of society Today .
Trevor. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 12:12 pm | | | The answer is in the Bible. 2 Chronicles 7:14 " If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." If we had a full blown revival such as occurred in England in the 1700's and a lot of people came to a saving knowledge of Christ then society, which is the sum of its parts would change. "Society" is the amalgum of millions of individual units -- people. Change individuals, one by one and when you have changed enough people society changes. |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 02:13 pm | | Trevor,
In my opinion the answer to most of the problems you mention is to simply legalize and regulate the "vice industries" as is done in Nevada.
They're never going to stomp out drugs or prostitution, it ain't happening. However, they could control the negative secondary effects to a great degree. (Disease, protection rackets, crime, etc...)
Poverty however is another thing altogether.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 03:32 pm | | Hi John,
This is a fair point , but from my trips to Holland - notably , Amsterdam , I have noted that there is a legal (Licensed)trade & illegal (unlicensed) trade --- ,the difference between the two mainly being based on price rather than level of service.(Therefore,"Control",does not automatically follow),a good point,nonetheless.
But it does (Potentially) offer a limited solution - (eg. Restaurants , being Legal ,but still having to pay for protection from ALL parties).
Diana,
Whilst I agree (in principle) with what you say ,I can empathise with the person who finds this difficult because their Pimp/Dealer is demanding payment , by the Threat of : e.g."A good kicking ".
Although,as previously stated,I am a Buddhist(not a very good one!!!!!)I recognise the value of what you are saying(i.e Realise you are Loved and Trust this).
I trust my analysis causes no offence, and apologise if it does.
Kind Regards,
Trevor. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:38 am | | Regulation is not a viable solution. In 1998, the US Health Department and the Nevada Department of Health Services reported that 78% of the prostitutes in Las Vegas were infected with HIV or some other form of sexually transmitted disease. A circular from the US State Department states that Amsterdam has a crime rate higher than New York City. The cause that is given is the legalization of controlled substances.
Here in the US the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms maintain that despite the repeal of prohibition, organized crime still controls, to some extent, the sale and distribution of alcohol. This control often lies in the hands of Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, more notably the Banditos and the Sons of Silence, although Pagans and Outlaws exercise some control in the Eastern US. It is also interesting to note that the Chicago Street Gang, The Black Gangster Disciples, the largest in the US with almost 500,000 members, have entered the political arena and almost won the Mayor’s race in Chicago and the Governor’s race in Illinois. Their platform of course was against the legalization of illegal drugs and the death penalty. In fact, their lobbiest were primarily responsible for the Illinois Governor’s decision to suspend the executions in the State of Illinois, due to their leader, being on Death Row.
We also have to remember that with the repeal of prohibition, we still suffer from a high number of alcohol related incidents.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 09:27 am | | Trevor,
It sure wouldn't solve all the problems, and yeah, there would still be the illegal sort. But it WOULD cut the demand and the profitability and that has to help.
Scott,
"In 1998, the US Health Department and the Nevada Department of Health Services reported that 78% of the prostitutes in Las Vegas were infected with HIV or some other form of sexually transmitted disease."
I'm not suprised. Prostitution is illegal and unregulated in Las Vegas.
"We also have to remember that with the repeal of prohibition, we still suffer from a high number of alcohol related incidents."
And despite the removal of Jarts from the land of the free, stupidity related deaths continue unabated.
I understand your point, I simply disagree with your conclusions.
And I think I'll leave it at that because I don't really want to get into a big discussion on the issue.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:15 am | | Scott,
You raised some good points against legalization. I'd be in favor of legalizing something like marijuana--the resources we use to combat this drug are an utter waste, IMO.
Incidentally, executions were suspended in Illinois because of the advent of DNA testing in the Rolando Cruz case--it was found that many of the inmates on Death Row were innocent, and that the police had used illegal means to extract confessions.
While the Black Gangster Disciples are indeed one of the most powerful gangs in Chicago (the Latin Kings are also up there), I find it hard to believe their candidate almost wrested the election from Richard Daley, whose political machine has him pretty much locked into the office for as long as he wants it (and has done a good job there, IMO).
Best,
Dave |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:54 am | | David:
"I'd be in favor of legalizing something like marijuana--the resources we use to combat this drug are an utter waste, IMO."
Not to mention the criminalization of hundreds of thousands of people who basically aren't criminals.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:55 am | | Dave,
True on all accounts but the BGD (Building Greater Diversity) threw tons of money behind the effort to halt the executions by demanding DNA testing. I’ll pull the newspaper articles about the elections I mentioned, sometime in the early 90s or late 80s if I recall, at that time BGD was known as (Better Growth and Development).
An FBI friend of mine states that it has long been suspected but not proven that the Latin Kings were involved in Cruz's defense.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 12:28 pm | | Hi, Scott
I take your word for it, so don't worry about the articles. But if you do come across them, I'd be interested in seeing them, as I love all things Chicago. I wonder if you're talking about the El Rukns. Or maybe it has something to do with Larry Hoover and the Black Gangster Disciples--I remember he was in the news quite a bit when I first moved to Chicago in 1992.
"An FBI friend of mine states that it has long been suspected but not proven that the Latin Kings were involved in Cruz's defense."
Exactly, suspected, not proven. What was proven was that Cruz was an innocent man. But if the LK were involved in his defense, I'd submit it's simply because Cruz is Hispanic and nothing more than that. There was a tremendous grass-roots movement for him in the Hispanic neighborhoods.
Actually, the Latin Kings have been linked to the Cruz story. A member of the Latin Kings was contracted by Dupage Co. sheriffs to murder Cruz. They hired a guy named Antonio Ascensio, who was already in prison, to murder Cruz in 1995. He was transferred to the facility where Cruz was at, but Cruz's trial ended unexpectedly early and he was released by the time Ascensio arrived.
Ascensio isn't the only source for the story; a Dupage County sheriff named Carlos Rodriguez backs the story up. Interestingly, Rodriguez has since been fired. Also interestingly, officials in DuPage County never investigated this story, as far as I know.
Timsta,
Excellent point, and much more valid than the one I made--thanks for that. I don't really remember the details, but wasn't there a guy in Michigan who got some crazy amount of time for having a small amount of pot?
Let me clarify that I'm not advocating the use of pot-I've never seen the allure of it, but I've never bought it was a 'gateway drug'. I would never propose the legalization of heroin, cocaine, etc.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 01:06 pm | | David:
Dunno about Michigan, but in Nevada one seed is a felony.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 04:17 pm | | Dave,
I'll get the articles for you. It is scary how organized these people are and what they are capable of. If you like Chicago History or anything Chicago then they would make a good read.
I'm glad you mentioned Larry Hoover, I couldn't remember his name. When I was a gang officer, I remember instructors talking about him in classes i was required to attend. At the time he was, maybe he still is, leader of the Black Gangster Disciples. At one time he was called the most powerful black man in America, due to the power he weilded behind bars.The original leader of the BGD was David Barksdale. He bore the title King David. After his death the Black Gangster Disciples began flying the Star of David and now the Star of David and the number 6 ( because of the six points) are held near and dear to them. All BGDs from across the US have to make a pligrimage to a particular street corner in Cabrini Green. I can't remember the street corner, right off hand, but its the corner where King David was gunned down by Latin Kings.Part of their manifesto states: When I die have no pity, bury me deep in gangsta city. My wife, a Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia, and I are currently working on a book regarding the religious aspects of street gangs.
If I recall, members of the El Rukins were recently arrested for some terrorist deal. I do remember Chicago PD, ATF and the FBI rounding up a bunch of them in the late 90's for obtaining military ordinance. I also remember Army Special Forces and Ranger Units finding El Rukins in their ranks during that same time.
Latin Kings.... I know them well. They rule the French Quarter in New Orleans.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:50 pm | | | Regardless of one's personal opinion towards legalizing drugs,the most important issue is: Who will profit? Drugs will become so cheap,because gangs like the Pagans(which were responsible for the explosion of methampthetamine here in the nation's capital of meth,Philly )will not be undersold be the Government, Personally,I don't want this government to control anything I do. They cannot come up with a solution for so many critical issues currently,one shudders at what nonsense those bozos would lay on us....I admit I was a hard core meth head for 20 years. I would not want the US Govt. making that s*** available for anyone. Despite what marijuana users say,it is addictive. They smoke it either every day or every chance they have. Thats cool with me and the gang....but its still addictive and would you want the Fed's doling out three finger lids of their junk? Gangs and Governments are profit minded when they wanna legalize dope. Keep it illegal....Just an opinion. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:08 pm | | Hey, Howard my buddy
Let's not make what is or isn't addictive an issue--what about beautiful sweet booze and tobacco 
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:56 am | | Hi All,
I have often wondered why some of the same people who are so happy about the freedom America supposedly offers support the government deciding who should live or die (the death penalty), what may be consumed (drugs), what we may read (pornography), and what sex acts we may engage in (sodomy laws).
Personally, those laws really do not affect me - except that the government has decided that if I make the 'wrong' choice about my conduct, I shall be imprisoned.
So much for freedom.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 01:34 pm | | Howdy,
Oddly enough, the drug issue is my one big piece of political hypocrisy in an otherwise staunchly libertarian platform (although party-wise, I'm a card carrying Republican - we're better organized).
And the government will never legalize drugs, because the drug dealers and drug cartels will never let it happen. They make drugs legal and they have to deal with regulations regarding sales, advertising, etc AND competition not only from legitimate pharmaceutical companies, but also by tobacco companies, farmers, drug stores, etc.
Right now they've got a monopoly, which is protected by their cash - which pays for everything from on the ground protection, legal protection (both from non-crook attorneys, and crooked cops), and political protection to the physical growing, processing, transportation and sales of the stuff. It's a huge business, and they won't tolerate having to "go legit".
On the other issues that Rich brought up, I don't care about porno or sex acts, and I consider the death penalty to be the "people" deciding who lives and dies, not the government, so I can sleep comfy with my beliefs. It's just the drug issue that makes me hypocritical and personally, I'm just fine with that.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:57 pm | | Hi Brian,
I think you will find many of the "legitimate" pharmaceutical companies (aka, state sanctioned drug dealers) strongest against legalization. They don't want the competition.
As to the death penalty, of course, a jury (usually but not always) makes the ultimate decision over life and death. However, it is the state that decides whether they are charged with a death penalty offense.
Nonetheless, jurors are compensated by the state (albeit in small amounts), so technically they are state employees deciding who should live and who should die.
This is, of course, quibbling - but that is what civil libertarians like myself do.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:19 pm | | Rich,
Being one myself, I know what you mean.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 06:33 am | | This is not an excuse to start another argument over definitions of words, but I find it interesting that Rich, Brian and I all consider ourselves civil libertarians.
I've said elsewhere I consider myself a liberal (was at one point an actual card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, but haven't paid dues in a while), Brian just said he was Republican leaning towards libertarianism, and I'm not sure if Rich has fessed up officially to a position... but from general gist of things it's pretty clear we disagree on most things.
Strange how that works.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 06:59 am | | This is the wonder of the human mind. I have no official status re this discussion. I usually prefer to gain all the information I can and then see what it all says to me. Fact is we may consider ourselves to be one thing or another but what that entails is different for each of us.
I feel that, as a product of working class family I retain some of the values that entails. In the UK that is generally a fairly conservative position. In cases such as the previous examples I would say that would be against the burglars involved.
However I consider myself intelligent and because of this I will look for any circumstances which could help me understand why someone acts as they do. This leans towards a liberal viewpoint. Because I value intelligence I would say that puts me more in the liberal camp than the conservative.
Phil |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 02:41 pm | | My political ideology is a bit iconoclastic (crazy?) but I think is intellectually consistent.
I consider myself a civil libertarian - not a libertarian in itself. Libertarians actually believe there should be as little government as possible. I don't subscribe to that notion.
I strongly believe that government should not regulate personal individual behavior - what people consume, who they have sex with, what they can read, who should live or die (therefore I oppose the death penalty)etc etc.
Yet, since the government manufactures money, I believe government does have the rightful authority to regulate the economy - via taxation and regulations upon businesses.
This would seemingly make me a party-line Democrat. However, I am at odds with that party on at least three major issues. Though I personally would never own a gun, I oppose gun control. I also oppose abortion (except in instances where the life of the mother is at risk). I also support government vouchers to allow children to go to private schools (but only if they are fully funded). On those issues, my leftist friends become enraged.
I believe government also should provide all citizens with universal access to both education and health care.
So, I do consider myself a civil libertarian on personal freedom but a government interventionist toward the economy and business.
Best Wishes,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 12:45 am | | I tend to think of myself as a Jeffersonian style democrat (little D). And that firmly puts me into the conservative, civil libertarian side more than the liberal, civil libertarian side.
I believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Government, in and of itself, is in place to ensure that the lawful society that we have is maintained.
I agree with Rich that I feel that the government should not regulate personal individual behavior, except on the drug question. This is a quirk that is individual to me, and I make no attempts to justify my belief or to integrate it seamlessly into the rest of my ideology. And despite the fact that the government manufactures money, I believe that all the government does is provide a medium of exchange and that the people - you and me - create the wealth and therefore the government is not entitled to take from me, unless I give it that authority. And I expect a lot of value from my money. I don't waste it, so I don't want the government to waste it.
I guess this would make me a party-line Republican, but I - like Rich - am at odds with my party on a number of major issues. I support abortion, only because I am a man, and I don't feel that it is my place to make those decisions - and according to the law, it's not. I don't believe in the vast majority of crime policy, because I think it's ineffective, particuarlly "3 strikes and your out" laws. I'm staunchly pro-union, as I've seen first hand how willing modern businesses are to crapping on their employees and feel that no matter what public perception is on unions, they are still necessary. All of those things piss of my conservative friends.
Like Dan says, it's interesting that we can all use the same terminiology yet have totally different interpretations of what the terms mean.
B |
|
|
|
|
