|
Post by joeyself on Aug 27, 2014 10:25:44 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. There was something vaguely familiar about this thread, and your presumption to know what Chapman was thinking or how he felt. Use of search engine found this: abbeyrd.proboards.com/thread/4554/naming-unnameable-where-notoriety-start?page=2 where you had previously told us what you thought he was thinking or how he felt despite the most recent evidence being to the contrary. I don't know about the NY prison system, but it would be a surprise to me that any convict that is considered a safety risk would be allowed to be on Internet chat boards where private messages could be exchanged to plot an escape or smuggling in contraband, or directing criminal activity outside the walls. Mail is monitored and copied, phone calls are recorded, so the notion that any inmate has free reign on the internet is far-fetched to me. They have enough problems maintaining order without adding to the possibilities. Then again, the NY prison system has a right to operate as it sees fit. So, Mark David Chapman, if you're reading this, I hope you never see daylight as a free man, and that your crime torments you on an hourly basis. JcS
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 12:06:22 GMT -5
Murderers in these humane days enjoy the Life Of Riley in prison, that is IF they actually make it to prison, when they haven't gotten off scot-free by some fancy-talking and highly-paid defense lawyer who knows their client is a murderer. It wouldn't surprise me if John's killer is having a ball on the computer, tucked away in a safe unit of the jail, while most of us have to go to work.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 27, 2014 12:17:59 GMT -5
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. There was something vaguely familiar about this thread, and your presumption to know what Chapman was thinking or how he felt. Use of search engine found this: abbeyrd.proboards.com/thread/4554/naming-unnameable-where-notoriety-start?page=2 where you had previously told us what you thought he was thinking or how he felt despite the most recent evidence being to the contrary. I don't know about the NY prison system, but it would be a surprise to me that any convict that is considered a safety risk would be allowed to be on Internet chat boards where private messages could be exchanged to plot an escape or smuggling in contraband, or directing criminal activity outside the walls. Mail is monitored and copied, phone calls are recorded, so the notion that any inmate has free reign on the internet is far-fetched to me. They have enough problems maintaining order without adding to the possibilities. Then again, the NY prison system has a right to operate as it sees fit. So, Mark David Chapman, if you're reading this, I hope you never see daylight as a free man, and that your crime torments you on an hourly basis. JcS He isn't looking at it, I found this with just a couple of minutes of searching: prisonhandbook.com/9277/greene-correctional-facility-new-york/The key words: State prisoners are not allowed to access the internet. So, any objections to using the name of Lennon's killer because he is enjoying seeing it online are not based in fact. I know, that won't stop some of the folks here, but those that have a grasp on reality will abandon that line of faulty reasoning. JcS
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 27, 2014 13:33:03 GMT -5
Trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who has committed a crime in order to gain personal notoriety (and I'm not sure I can) I can imagine myself reacting like this:
"That scum-sucking maggot" - "Hooray! I scored! What I did has had the impact I was after, I can tell that by the way they refer to me."
"V. Fabber." - "Disappointed. All murderers get their name."
I'll say it again - I have no respect for Chapman, none whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 13:37:47 GMT -5
For the record, I do not object to the Creep's name being used online "because he may be able to read it on the Internet". .. It's just a general courtesy to John Lennon, and also to say a big "F U" to his killer. For those who want to dignify him by addressing him by his name (even while you're privately at home and in seclusion where he certainly cannot hear you) knock yourselves out. But I have more respect for Lennon and much warranted disrespect for Butthole to give him the courtesy of addressing him by his name.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 13:43:22 GMT -5
Trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who has committed a crime in order to gain personal notoriety (and I'm not sure I can) I can imagine myself reacting like this: "That scum-sucking maggot" - "Hooray! I scored! What I did has had the impact I was after, I can tell that by the way they refer to me." No, you should only put yourself in that one specific guy's shoes -- and by all accounts, it was the notoriety and fame he wanted; not to infuriate people to the point of calling him names (in fact, he hated being disrespected and talked down at like a "nobody"). Perhaps some other individual killer might gloat because he managed to get people angered and upset at him; but that apparently was never the way this nut thought. I'm glad you feel as you do for yourself, but I feel you are respecting him more than he deserves by using his name.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 13:43:33 GMT -5
Trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who has committed a crime in order to gain personal notoriety (and I'm not sure I can) I can imagine myself reacting like this: "That scum-sucking maggot" - "Hooray! I scored! What I did has had the impact I was after, I can tell that by the way they refer to me." No, you should only put yourself in that one specific guy's shoes -- and by all accounts, it was the notoriety and fame he wanted. Perhaps some other individual killers might gloat because he managed to get people angered and upset at him; but that apparently was never the way this nut thought. I'm glad you feel as you do for yourself, but I feel you are respecting him more than he deserves by using his name.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 27, 2014 14:08:38 GMT -5
Well, he's got two more years before we have to worry about him again. I have greater concerns though. What if people can truly change? What if this man does truly feel remorse for what he did? Sometimes I think I have gotten too hardened in wanting an eye for an eye. Yes, he deserves to remain in prison, that's not my point, but I am so full of hatred towards him and that's not very consistent with the spirit of Beatles' music of love, peace and forgiveness. As Beatles fans, sometimes I think that we need to rise above our hatred of the man least he cause us to argue among ourselves as we are now doing! We can still wish him to remain in prison but thoughts of violence towards him are not healthy.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 27, 2014 14:20:39 GMT -5
I have greater concerns though. What if people can truly change? What if this man does truly feel remorse for what he did? Sometimes I think I have gotten too hardened in wanting an eye for an eye. Yes, he deserves to remain in prison, that's not my point, but I am so full of hatred towards him and that's not very consistent with the spirit of Beatles' music of love, peace and forgiveness. As Beatles fans, sometimes I think that we need to rise above our hatred of the man least he cause us to argue among ourselves as we are now doing! We can still wish him to remain in prison but thoughts of violence towards him are not healthy. I wouldn't be surprised if he IS genuinely sorry and wishes he could turn back the clock and change the wrong he did. But murder is the #1 Wrong... and when you commit it, there is no going back. He forfeited his own life. It does not matter one bit whether he is truly changed. And I don't buy into this stuff about "Beatles believed in Peace And Love, so why don't we?"... We saw Yoko (with John) singing for understanding for Attica State, until it hit home for her . That's typical. I don't do whatever the Beatles tell me to do. And you know what else? Neither did they, always.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 27, 2014 16:10:11 GMT -5
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Aug 27, 2014 16:41:22 GMT -5
Here's what the "Knights Who Say Ni" think.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 27, 2014 18:39:59 GMT -5
I'm glad you feel as you do for yourself, but I feel you are respecting him more than he deserves by using his name. I'm not quite sure how to put this any more clearly than I have, other than to say that I feel you are respecting him more than he deserves by avoiding using his name. Although I am glad you feel as you do for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 27, 2014 20:02:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 28, 2014 6:09:08 GMT -5
He's sure looking rather gaunt - and losing what's left of his hair. He's still got an uncomfortable looking grin on his recent mug shot. Why in the world is he up for parole every two years? That sure seems rather frequent. What a system.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 28, 2014 8:53:36 GMT -5
The killer saved the State a drawn out, expensive trial that would have cost the taxpayers a lot of money especially on expert witnesses as to the dude's sanity or insanity, by pleading guilty if I remember right.
He pled guilty and was given 20 years to life which to me means he could be in prison for life but once he hit that minimum cap of 20 years then he was eligible for parole and apparently that is every two years.
Back in 1981 I was glad the killer pled guilty to save Yoko having to testify to the actual mechanics of the murder itself that she was horrifically present for. Now I wish he would have been convicted after a jury trial as maybe the punishment would have been harsher, no 20 year minimum crap. But I don't know NY sentencing law to be sure.
I had a nagging feeling about that "twenty" to life part even as a kid. We were told then he might not spend his entire life in prison!
There are many people, even some of our friends here, who don't believe this guy was the actual killer or at the most was a patsy for a dark governmental conspiracy. Sean Lennon believes that. So this guy's name is not offensive to them. They think he is not the killer!
I don't subscribe to that but some people closer to John than us do!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 28, 2014 9:02:24 GMT -5
There are many people, even some of our friends here, who don't believe this guy was the actual killer or at the most was a patsy for a dark governmental conspiracy. Sean Lennon believes that. So this guy's name is not offensive to them. They think he is not the killer! I don't subscribe to that but some people closer to John than us do! Even people close to John may be prone to having delusions and a fetish for conspiracy theories. Some people collect stamps; others see conspiracies everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 28, 2014 9:50:05 GMT -5
There are bits to this guy's story that don't add up. His working minimum wage jobs and sporadically at that but travelling freely between Hawaii and NYC at least on two different trips. He apparently owned some expensive artwork if I remember right. Where was his money coming from?! At the age of 18 back then, I firmly believed that it was a U.S. government conspiracy. As I sit here today, I wish more than ever that there was a jury trial and the spotlight that would have put on this heinous act. There are still missing pieces to this crime story. All I want is the truth!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 28, 2014 10:03:49 GMT -5
There are bits to this guy's story that don't add up. His working minimum wage jobs and sporadically at that but travelling freely between Hawaii and NYC at least on two different trips. He apparently owned some expensive artwork if I remember right. Where was his money coming from?! My Dear John, you have suuucch a scandalous mind. Ever hear of bank accounts? Selling things? I admit I haven't retained how he financed this at the moment, but I'm sure I knew at one time, and the whole story is clear in that Jack Jones book, 'Let Me Take You Down'. There are zero missing pieces. A depressed and mixed up guy buys a gun and bullets, and travels to New York to murder an accessible celebrity . So what's the rarest stamp in your collection?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 28, 2014 13:29:08 GMT -5
There is another book that argues the killer was a CIA "Manchurian Candidate," a programmed, zombie-like killer. Hadn't the killer been overseas at a refugee camp in a dangerous part of the world? I bet there were CIA operatives running around those places.
I am cynical but I mostly accept the lone gunman theory. He was a loser who wanted attention and fame. He was a little too immersed in that Salinger book.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 28, 2014 14:13:11 GMT -5
There is another book that argues the killer was a CIA "Manchurian Candidate," a programmed, zombie-like killer. . Why not? There are enough gullible readers hooked on such tabloid conspiracy fantasies. This wasn't the same person who wrote the book on Elvis Presley still being alive, is it?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 28, 2014 15:32:58 GMT -5
Here is the most detailed article yet on the killer's recent denial of parole from CNN.com: www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/showbiz/mark-chapman-parole-denied/index.html?hpt=hp_t2I wouldn't mind reading the hearing's transcript that was made public. The killer sounds almost too rational now, like this is his newest ploy: I'll sound thoughtful, self-deprecating and portray myself as a guy with his act together. \ The Board felt that he was still a risk to society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 4:04:23 GMT -5
Here's another article on the parole hearing, i haven't read the other linked articles in this thread so i don't know if this is a repeat . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2737101/Mark-David-Chapman-brags-incredible-planning-stalking-notorious-murder-John-Lennon.htmlHere are some quotes from the Daily Mail's online readers... "Imagine there's no Pa-role/ It's easy if you try/ No chance of getting freedom/ In prison you will die"....... "I didn't even give one of nastiest, cruelest, society and world robbing human killer the pleasure of reading his words.............. If I met him I would KILL HIM with my bare fists until his HEAD IS LIQUIDISED"........ "Why is this lunatic still getting media coverage? Don't you understand, that's what he feeds on... Let his final years be where no one really gives a dam about him.. Let him sink into oblivion.. If only out of respect for John Lennon"
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 29, 2014 10:39:32 GMT -5
Here's another article on the parole hearing, i haven't read the other linked articles in this thread so i don't know if this is a repeat . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2737101/Mark-David-Chapman-brags-incredible-planning-stalking-notorious-murder-John-Lennon.htmlHere are some quotes from the Daily Mail's online readers... "Imagine there's no Pa-role/ It's easy if you try/ No chance of getting freedom/ In prison you will die"....... "I didn't even give one of nastiest, cruelest, society and world robbing human killer the pleasure of reading his words.............. If I met him I would KILL HIM with my bare fists until his HEAD IS LIQUIDISED"........ "Why is this lunatic still getting media coverage? Don't you understand, that's what he feeds on... Let his final years be where no one really gives a dam about him.. Let him sink into oblivion.. If only out of respect for John Lennon" We hear that last sentiment a lot. Paul McCartney never should have written a poem for that guy even if Paul devastatingly called him, "The Jerk of All Jerks." I mean that killer sits in his cell and can smile and think, "Whoa dudes, Paul McCartney wrote a poem about me, he acknowledged me!" Isn't that bringing fame and recognition to the killer? P.S. fabfour, that was a very good link, thanks. The killer claims that his wife did not know that he was coming to kill John that second time. He told her he was coming to write a children's book! Okay boys, take the hit off Gloria, she was innocent after all!
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Aug 30, 2014 8:19:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 30, 2014 12:29:10 GMT -5
Thanks for that link Sally! And Sally's linked article has a link itself to the entire transcript of the recent parole board hearing in which John's killer was denied parole again. It is fascinating reading to me at least. It is weird that John's name is redacted as well as his family's names and address(the Dakota) for privacy reasons yet we all know who the victim was! In the murder of a non-celebrity, perhaps there are good reasons to redact and preserve the privacy of the victim and his/her family. But here I am almost mad that John Lennon's name is redacted every time. I want the world not to forget John Lennon, he was so important to his family as a loved one and to millions of us as an artist who always inspired us through his music. I feel John is being punished by having his name redacted.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Aug 30, 2014 17:00:51 GMT -5
That was mentioned the last time this topic was discussed (or dissected to smithereens by Joe). Heaven bound is Old Chappers I'm afraid. Hey! I didn't make the rules.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 31, 2014 14:21:12 GMT -5
That was mentioned the last time this topic was discussed (or dissected to smithereens by Joe). Heaven bound is Old Chappers I'm afraid. Hey! I didn't make the rules. Don't know why that would be of any dismay to anyone. If he has truly be reconciled with his Creator, so be it; it won't bump anyone else out to make room for him. The expression "whittling on God's end of the stick" comes to mind... JcS
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Aug 31, 2014 18:47:14 GMT -5
Seems like a terrible waste of a perfectly good Hell.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 1, 2014 7:03:13 GMT -5
It is fascinating reading to me at least. It is weird that John's name is redacted as well as his family's names and address(the Dakota) for privacy reasons yet we all know who the victim was! In the murder of a non-celebrity, perhaps there are good reasons to redact and preserve the privacy of the victim and his/her family. But here I am almost mad that John Lennon's name is redacted every time. I want the world not to forget John Lennon, he was so important to his family as a loved one and to millions of us as an artist who always inspired us through his music. I feel John is being punished by having his name redacted. I understand what you're saying, but I understand why they do it - if you have a policy about such things (and a policy is absolutely necessary) then it must be universal, or you might as well not have one.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Sept 1, 2014 13:16:51 GMT -5
The local newspaper has a policy of not running the names of people charged with misdemeanors, unless they are otherwise known. The "otherwise known" could be a bit of sliding scale, but they have to make the call. I'd say such a rule would be applicable in this case.
JcS
|
|