|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 22, 2014 15:56:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 22, 2014 16:17:02 GMT -5
Here is a more detailed article saying the killer must wait two more years to try parole again: www.theguardian.com/music/2014/aug/22/john-lennon-killer-mark-david-chapman-denied-paroleAnother article I saw confirmed that Yoko once again fought against his parole, submitting previous statements she has made on the subject. I have written this before but I despise the killer's wife too who knew what her husband intended to do but warned no one, least of all John and his family. And she is still married to the puke and goes shags him in prison, a priviledge I wish the killer wasn't given.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Aug 22, 2014 19:43:33 GMT -5
Good that you know who got denied again. I don't think they're ever going to let him out and he needs to stay where he is.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 23, 2014 6:36:37 GMT -5
I have written this before but I despise the killer's wife too who knew what her husband intended to do but warned no one, least of all John and his family. And she is still married to the puke and goes shags him in prison, a priviledge I wish the killer wasn't given. If I understand right, I don't think she knew he was going to do what he did in December. However, I think he went to New York once before in October to do the deed and turned around and went back home. He then told his wife what he had been contemplating, but that her love had saved him (so he said). He tried to keep his ego intact by telling her he really could have done it. So I guess in that way at least she knew he'd been harboring the thought... It is pathetic that he still is entitled to get visits from his wife while in prison. His eyes light up in a Barbara Walters interview when she is mentioned, and he happily says "she is my gemstone". Now, here's a crazy thought ... (I never would do this myself personallybut for some angry and crazed fanatic out there who still wishes someone would have killed this jerk of all jerks, but cannot get to him in prison -- why not knock off his wife? The only thing this slime ball has to live for is his wife . He robbed the world of John Lennon, so I hope that some unhinged person else out there gets the idea to return the deed, and then cause him similar anguish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 7:16:39 GMT -5
I have written this before but I despise the killer's wife too who knew what her husband intended to do but warned no one, least of all John and his family. And she is still married to the puke and goes shags him in prison, a priviledge I wish the killer wasn't given. If I understand right, I don't think she knew he was going to do what he did in December. However, I think he went to New York once before in October to do the deed and turned around and went back home. He then told his wife what he had been contemplating, but that her love had saved him (so he said). He tried to keep his ego intact by telling her he really could have done it. So I guess in that way at least she knew he'd been harboring the thought... It is pathetic that he still is entitled to get visits from his wife while in prison. His eyes light up in a Barbara Walters interview when she is mentioned, and he happily says "she is my gemstone". Now, here's a crazy thought ... (I never would do this myself personally), but for some angry and crazed fanatic out there who still wishes someone would have killed this jerk of all jerks, but cannot get to him in prison -- why not knock off his wife? The only thing this slime ball has to live for is his wife . He robbed the world of John Lennon, so I hope that some unhinged person else out there gets the idea to return the deed, and then cause him similar anguish. I like your thinking, i would like to expand on that thought but it's probably inappropriate to hope Chapman is not the last one who shagged her, double whammy...
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 23, 2014 12:33:00 GMT -5
One of the articles I read yesterday said the killer is in isolation against his wishes!
Now there is one wish I wish the State of New York would grant, let the creep go into the general prison population. He'd last a day maybe.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Aug 23, 2014 19:02:22 GMT -5
One of the articles I read yesterday said the killer is in isolation against his wishes! Now there is one wish I wish the State of New York would grant, let the creep go into the general prison population. He'd last a day maybe. I was thinking yesterday that they must have you know who in another area away from the general prison population because if they had him with everyone else, he probably would have been a gonner by now.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 24, 2014 7:16:48 GMT -5
I was thinking yesterday that they must have you know who in another area away from the general prison population because if they had him with everyone else, he probably would have been a gonner by now. Yes, he has always had his nice mini-apartment, tucked away from the other prison population. I agree with JSD that it would be nice to have him in the surroundings of other murderers. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'd do a Jeffrey Dahmer on him.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 24, 2014 11:18:31 GMT -5
At the risk of playing devil's advocate, I can't see what difference another two years will make at this point - if parole isn't appropriate now, it never will be, so tell him he will never be released and there's an end to it. That would be kinder.
And I'm afraid that I can't see that his wife (who hasn't committed a crime) being murdered is something to wish for.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Aug 24, 2014 11:38:09 GMT -5
Yes,vectisfabber, I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right. And please don't quote Paul McCartney at me ("How could two rights make a wrong?")
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 24, 2014 17:26:36 GMT -5
Yes,vectisfabber, I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right. It wouldn't be right. But it would make the killer suffer his own anguish, for anyone out there who is looking to get at him and cannot.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 24, 2014 20:16:21 GMT -5
Well, anyone prepared to do that would be no better than Chapman himself.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 24, 2014 22:11:03 GMT -5
I don't think anyone here really wants that, it is just venting. My point about the wife was I think she may have been able to prevent a major tragedy but didn't for selfish personal reasons and I always wish there was some kind of penal consequence to her. But she still gets to screw bubba.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 26, 2014 12:32:26 GMT -5
Well, anyone prepared to do that would be no better than himself. Of course... but that's still got nothing to do with giving the guy a bitter and lasting taste of his own medicine, if someone out there were so deranged and inclined. So they'd be no better than him in principal.... fine. In the meantime, vectis, you play right into his hands by mentioning his name. Exactly the kind of fame he desired.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 26, 2014 13:22:28 GMT -5
Joe, we're talking about him. We all know his name. Using it to identify him is giving him no more fame than talking about him in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 26, 2014 17:08:02 GMT -5
Joe, we're talking about him. We all know his name. Using it to identify him is giving him no more fame than talking about him in the first place. Don't look at me, he's the one who decides what he feels is glorifying, not me.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 26, 2014 17:18:54 GMT -5
Well, I have my doubts as to whether he's tuning in here and thinking, "Sod it, they're not using my name - HOORAY, Vectisfabber just named me: fame at last! That's exactly what I was after!"
He's still in prison, John's still dead, I'm pleased about the former and I fervently wish, as we all do, that the latter had never happened. And Chapman is not Voldemort.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 26, 2014 22:09:12 GMT -5
Well, I have my doubts as to whether he's tuning in here and thinking, "Sod it, they're not using my name - HOORAY, Vectisfabber just named me: fame at last! That's exactly what I was after!" He's still in prison, John's still dead, I'm pleased about the former and I fervently wish, as we all do, that the latter had never happened. And Chapman is not Voldemort. Have to agree with Joe. Why would any fan of The Beatles or John feel the need to mention his name? How do any of us know he is not lurking on this website? Every time his name is mentioned in conjunction with his heinous crime, he has been successful in his sick desire to be associated with John and The Beatles. Why not just call him "scum" or "maggot" or just plain "cold-blooded killer of John Lennon". Once the scum is dead and rotting, then use his name if you so desire. But if I were rotting away in a prison with not a lot to do besides banging my wife when she pops in for a visit, even rats have that urge, I would probably be online viewing social media websites discussing the man whose life I took away. Don't think for a minute he is sorry for his crime. It would be nice to know that he finds it very hard to see his name in print online anywhere in relation to his crime or his victim. But to each his own. You have the right to name him as much as you want regardless of what the rest of us think....... I am just glad the garbage will not be taken out of the prison for at least another three years and will remain rotting in it's place. Hopefully until it has to be incinerated.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 26, 2014 23:05:18 GMT -5
I did not use the name of John's killer in this Thread out of respect for those like Joe and lowbasso but now I am sorry that I did as I do not criticize in the least vectisfabber for stating it. The killer's name is well known. It is really like those not saying Voldemort in the Harry Potter series. We can pretend that MDC doesn't exist but he in fact does.
So when people here question vectisfabber's Beatles loyalty for writing the killer's name I can only say that vectis has forgotten more Beatles than some of you will ever know so get off his ass and don't question his loyalty because he was digging the Beatles when some of you were still shitting your pants or sucking tit.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 27, 2014 5:08:30 GMT -5
Thank you for the defence, JSD - I appreciate it and, if I ever want a US defence attorney, I will call you up for sure!
As regards the vexed question of naming a certain individual, let me make some points - these explain my thinking: they may not (and in some cases do not) correspond with the thoughts of others:
1. What happened happened. I wish it hadn't: it did, and none of us can change it or bring back what was taken away from us.
2. Naming his killer takes nothing away from my feelings and respect for John (which, in any case, are a matter for me and no-one else).
3. If our little incarcerated friend (which, incidentally, is a mode of reference which would appear to meet with the preferred method of not naming him, but which I find more offensive by far - I'm trying to make a point) is spending time trolling for himself (and I would expect that certain websites including social media and Beatles websites are banned for him, although this may not be so), and if his crazy notoriety motive is still there, then I would have thought the important thing for him would be that he is being discussed, not that he is being named.
4. That is also, broadly, my reaction to the suggestion that using The Name is disrespectful to people here who get upset by it. What upsets me is that John was killed: that and that alone. I can't change it. The man who did it is in prison: I don't care for him, I wish he had never been born, as do all of us. I don't publicise him but I do discuss him here, as do many of us. I know his name, as do all of us, and I am genuinely puzzled that reading/hearing his name is especially upsetting when he is clearly in our heads anyway while we're discussing him. Isn't the mere thought of his existence (and his continued existence) more upsetting than his name?
5. I genuinely believe that deliberately NOT using his name affords him a kind of half-assed respect that he doesn't merit. Apart from that single act of insanity, Chapman is so insignificant that he does not merit any of us going to the trouble of coming up with anonymised insults for the purpose of identifying him. Calling him "the jerk of all jerks" or similar gives him the importance he was after: to my way of thinking, it amounts to a statement which legitimises him. Calling him "Chapman" is cold, functional and impersonal and, by using his name as a mere label, treats him as a thing of no importance or value.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 27, 2014 5:11:02 GMT -5
And the forgetting stuff (thank you for reminding me, JSD) - it will happen to all of you, too!
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Aug 27, 2014 6:25:54 GMT -5
I agree Vectis, well said.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 8:24:08 GMT -5
I did not use the name of John's killer in this Thread out of respect for those like Joe and lowbasso but now I am sorry that I did as I do not criticize in the least vectisfabber for stating it. The killer's name is well known. It is really like those not saying Voldemort in the Harry Potter series. We can pretend that MDC doesn't exist but he in fact does. . JSD - do whatever you want. Don't do me, lowbasso, or anyone else any favors by not naming this jerk. Not naming him at its core should have NOTHING to do with respecting "us", and everything to do with not respecting this slimy killer. He does not deserve to have his name in print any more than he has already. He has forfeited the right to bae addressed by his name (some people even honoring him with the added usage of his middle name, no less!)... This has got nothing to do with "pretending he does not exist"... this is not what I'm doing; I have always fully accepted the reality of John's murder, and you completely miss the entire point. Besides, it should feel much better calling this jerk a jerk (or "idiot", or "scum", or some other such derogatory moniker) rather than respecting him with first, middle, and then last surname. This maniac wanted his name known and to be "somebody". Simply not calling him by his name reduces him to more of a nothing, a nobody, a vermin. But from here on please just do whatever you want, if you, Vectis, and others prefer to respect the Creep.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 8:27:53 GMT -5
Well, I have my doubts as to whether he's tuning in here and thinking, "Sod it, they're not using my name - HOORAY, Vectisfabber just named me: fame at last! That's exactly what I was after!" He's still in prison, John's still dead, I'm pleased about the former and I fervently wish, as we all do, that the latter had never happened. And Chapman is not Voldemort. As lowbasso tried to explain: why in the world would fans of John feel a need or some kind of desire to use his name? It's just as easy (and more satisfying! ) to use "ass" or "nut" than it is to use his name (even EASIER, as there are even fewer letters to type!). Even here, vectis, you thumb your nose and go out of your way to use it yet again, to make some kind of a "point". The only "point" you've made to me there is that you respect the Creep more than you respect John Lennon. It's not a matter as to whether or not he is tuning in and reading it; it's a matter of principal, and to remember what he killed John Lennon for.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 27, 2014 8:41:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I respect him. I've tried to explain precisely why, to me, the whole business of deliberately not using his name affords him far more respect - bigs him up, attributes importance to him - than simply using his name as a curt, factual identifier does.
But for the avoidance of misunderstanding, please take on board that I do not respect him in the slightest and, should I use his name, it is in fact partially intended to be a token of my DISrespect.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 8:46:26 GMT -5
1. What happened happened. I wish it hadn't: it did, and none of us can change it or bring back what was taken away from us. True, but this is not what others are trying to do by not naming the Creep. My own thoughts and feelings about that are also mine and nobody else's... and I disagree, and feel any time you use his name you are actually "respecting" him. Go ahead and respect him by calling him by his name - use first name, surname -- even the added middle name if you really want to add more nobility. Forget about the idea of "giving him what he wants".. how about just the idea that the scumbag gave up the right to be called anything other than garbage? LOL! Are you kidding? Who is calling him "friend"? How about "shithead"? No, I do not "prefer" 'our little incarcerated friend'... unbelievable.. Never let it be said that I don't concede a point, even while I may be on opposite ends of a topic. You've got a point about his possibly "getting off" more on being discussed, regardless of what he is being called - the fact that we are even spending this much time discussing him may make him feel incredibly "important". But I still think he's a piece of crap who forfeited the dignity to be addressed by his name. Regardless of where one stands on the "fame" issue, I'm sure we may agree that he lost the right to be addressed with dignity. I'm repeating here by now, but consider it more a matter of giving him too much respect and dignity by referring to him by his name; not as much to "not pay him any mind". We have a disagreement on the matter of what label respects him or not. It feels so much better anyway to call him "scum" instead of his name. And if he ever reads enough such words, I think that ticks him off much more than just using his last name.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 8:49:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I respect him. I've tried to explain precisely why, to me, the whole business of deliberately not using his name affords him far more respect - bigs him up, attributes importance to him - than simply using his name as a curt, factual identifier does. But for the avoidance of misunderstanding, please take on board that I do not respect him in the slightest and, should I use his name, it is in fact partially intended to be a token of my DISrespect. I'm sure you actually DON'T respect him -- far from it. ... I'm just saying that when you use his real name, it (unintentionally) provides unwarranted respect though you might not be aware of it. Even when you watch movies and characters ask: "What's your name?".. they often will just give their last name. (Heston in PLANET OF THE APES: "My name is Taylor"). People use their last names often as the proud indicator of who they are.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 9:01:26 GMT -5
So when people here question vectisfabber's Beatles loyalty for writing the killer's name I can only say that vectis has forgotten more Beatles than some of you will ever know so get off his ass and don't question his loyalty because he was digging the Beatles when some of you were still shitting your pants or sucking tit. John, here you sound like Paul in EARLY DAYS ("I don't see how they can remember when they weren't where it was at"). And I know how much you have always believed that this does not mean that others cannot be better historians, or ultimately know more. My personal experience over the last four+ decades has been that most (not all) "Firsties" know the least . More often, they are biased to what they experienced and don't really care to venture off and know much else. They think that because they were there and of a more advanced age when Beatlemania was active, this somehow qualifies them as being better "authorities". I don't think that's necessarily true at all, and I'm sure neither do you, based on things you've said in the past. I'm sure being an older fan who was there in 1964 certainly gives senior fans exclusive experiences of "how it felt at the time", but it usually takes away from the knowledge. Hell, lots of things known about the Beatles weren't even revealed until after those years.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 27, 2014 9:29:35 GMT -5
Oh no, am I using Macca logic!?
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 27, 2014 9:50:17 GMT -5
At the risk of playing devil's advocate, I can't see what difference another two years will make at this point - if parole isn't appropriate now, it never will be, so tell him he will never be released and there's an end to it. That would be kinder. I'm guessing, since I don't practice in New York, that Chapman comes up for parole every few years the same way Manson and his followers do in California. In Arkansas, I know that an inmate gets a parole eligibility date when he goes into the system. I tell my clients that the PE date is NOT the same as a release date, that's just the earliest they will be considered for parole. They don't have to do anything to request that date (as far as I know, anyway), because the prison has limited bed space and they want to move people out as soon as they can. It is my understanding that if denied, another PE date is set. As far as being "kinder" to Chapman, that would be way down on my list of things to consider. Additionally, dangling the possibility of parole is a way of encouraging better behavior in the facility. Lifers with no chance of parole have little to lose by obeying the rules--maybe some privileges, but what are they going to do, put them in jail?? JcS
|
|