Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Should the Victims Be Remembered?

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

  • John Bennett
    replied
    The idea of a memorial to the victims is a difficult one.

    For a start, we don't know which victims fell by the same hand, as it were. Also the international profile of 'Jack the Ripper', especially the mythology or general public's interpretation, is so far gone that it clouds an otherwise noble intention.

    What names would go on it, if any?

    And if there were no names (perhaps a neutral, symbolic memorial) is it possible that some would see it as a recognition of a killer's deeds? There are a lot of different viewpoints out there.

    I find this idea hard to get my head round. I can see why it would be considered, but my logic tells me it would be... complicated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neal Shelden
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post
    And again, arguing from the premise that he is more famous...so what? Because their killer was famous, they deserve a memorial? That's more an honor to him than them.
    The idea that the memorial to the victims is a memorial to Jack is very strange???

    Leave a comment:


  • AlfredFJones
    replied
    In terms of a memorial, I think that one should be made dedicated to the memory and spirits of all murder victims whose cases were never solved.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barnaby
    replied
    We would not be memorializing these women for their deeds, nor for their fates. The memorial would simply be profit for the creators by providing entertainment to the patrons. Capitalism decides who is remembered.

    And for these shallow reasons I'm actually all for it. I don't have to pretend that I care deeply about the victims. It's OK to say that the crimes are interesting and I have a weird hobby.

    Leave a comment:


  • AlfredFJones
    replied
    We had a similar discussion when the murders were occurring in Ipswich. There was so much silly sentimentality over the victims, with their friends and relations saying what nice people they were really etc.

    I took the view that they had actively taken a decision to follow a dangerous occupation and that the chances of them being the victim of a killer were consequently that much greater than average.

    I was positively flooded with waves of sentimental gush over this view. However I made a prediction then and it would be interesting to see if I was right.

    I predicted that in a year’s time no one would even remember their names. So be honest, without looking it up how many of you out there can remember the names of the victims of the Ipswich killer. How many of you can remember the name of the killer?
    Wasn't that the very recent serial killer in the United Kingdom?
    If I'm correct, then that's the one that I was following quite closely in the newspapers for awhile, but then people stopped printing stories or talking about it....
    Did the killer go to trial yet?

    Leave a comment:


  • AlfredFJones
    replied
    In my opinion they should be remembered as being victims of a crime, who having through a mixture of social structures and their own choices/actions were at the bottom rung of society (being a neo-marxist I would prioritise structure over agency).
    I could hug you right now.
    This is the best answer yet, and I absolutely agree with you on everything except that I'm, unlike you, not a neo-marxist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Hinton
    replied
    Victims

    We had a similar discussion when the murders were occurring in Ipswich. There was so much silly sentimentality over the victims, with their friends and relations saying what nice people they were really etc.

    I took the view that they had actively taken a decision to follow a dangerous occupation and that the chances of them being the victim of a killer were consequently that much greater than average.

    I was positively flooded with waves of sentimental gush over this view. However I made a prediction then and it would be interesting to see if I was right.

    I predicted that in a year’s time no one would even remember their names. So be honest, without looking it up how many of you out there can remember the names of the victims of the Ipswich killer. How many of you can remember the name of the killer?

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    [QUOTE=Ally;82290]
    Originally posted by Neal Shelden View Post

    No, I would argue that Jack the Ripper isn't known throughout the world. You ask the average Brazilian or even the average American about Jack the Ripper, and they are liable to go...who? Maybe it was true 20 or even 30 years ago, but the vast majority of people nowadays think he's fictional if they even know anything about it all. And again, arguing from the premise that he is more famous...so what? Because their killer was famous, they deserve a memorial? That's more an honor to him than them.



    Cops, firefighters, and soldiers put their lives on the line every day so that lazy ass pansies like you and me can sit in our comfortable homes bitching about what a crap job they do. They are the ones who have to deal with every death, natural or unnatural, deal with gut wrenching cases of child abuse, random violence, and in short, every damn day of their lives put up with more **** than pampered malcontents could ever imagine. So when they die in the line, you are damn smokin they deserve a memorial. They risked their lives to make your world a little easier. Comparing a cops death in the line to a drunken degenerate out trying to score booze is just twisted.




    And again, so what? Because one bad memorial is up, that's an excuse to waste more money on more bad memorials? How about we just get rid of all memorials made to people who did nothing whatsoever and quit making new ones.



    So they should get a memorial for no other reason than they were victims of the "most famous murder ever" and this will teach people that they were more than just victims of a murder?? We are giving them a memorial JUST because they were victims of a murder, to teach people they were more than just victims of a murder!! I want to repeat that a third time but I am sure the irony can not possibly be more clear. The logic is flawed.
    Wow I am weeping. So when is the Dr. Phil memorial. I get to spit first!

    Leave a comment:


  • Shelley
    replied
    It's quite possible that the JTR killings of at least the 5 canocials are perhaps the most written about subject to do with crime, killings and some say ripperology rather than criminology, one of which this casebook is entirely devoted to the JTR killings as a type of memorial, that a memorial has also arisen in other areas for these 5 canocials.
    I think that anyone who wishes to remember these 5 canocial women in thier own way is of personal choice and should be respected. It did look like the authority within London, decided to put a wall plaque up with the name of each of the 5 canocials.
    I prefer the label socialist to anti-social any day of the week.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm X
    replied
    even the kids on an XBOX forum have heard of JTR, they were chatting about it the other day and some are quite interested too...... it's getting off their lazy arses and finding a job that they dont know anything about

    they're also quite intertested on the ``mysteries of the unexplained`` website too, the Ripper is quite popular on the web as is Springheeled Jack.......... it's very cult and iconic, it's very gothic and part of English folklore, many Americans are interested.

    it's modern serial killers that are unpopular, it's too close to modern times; too much here and now
    Last edited by Malcolm X; 04-23-2009, 11:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    [QUOTE=Neal Shelden;82275]
    I tend to be in favour of the memorial to the victims, probably no surprise there? I don't agree that the murders done by Ted Bundy or Peter Sutcliffe are as famous. No way, Jack the Ripper's known all over the world, but not many would remember the previous two examples.
    No, I would argue that Jack the Ripper isn't known throughout the world. You ask the average Brazilian or even the average American about Jack the Ripper, and they are liable to go...who? Maybe it was true 20 or even 30 years ago, but the vast majority of people nowadays think he's fictional if they even know anything about it all. And again, arguing from the premise that he is more famous...so what? Because their killer was famous, they deserve a memorial? That's more an honor to him than them.

    After all, how many memorials have been up to police officers when they got killed, I'm not really complaining about that, by I didn't ask them to join the police so I can't see why they need a special memorial when they are killed, especially in the US where it could be seen as a memorial to crap gun laws!
    Cops, firefighters, and soldiers put their lives on the line every day so that lazy ass pansies like you and me can sit in our comfortable homes bitching about what a crap job they do. They are the ones who have to deal with every death, natural or unnatural, deal with gut wrenching cases of child abuse, random violence, and in short, every damn day of their lives put up with more **** than pampered malcontents could ever imagine. So when they die in the line, you are damn smokin they deserve a memorial. They risked their lives to make your world a little easier. Comparing a cops death in the line to a drunken degenerate out trying to score booze is just twisted.

    In this country we had a memorial put down to Stephen Lawrence because he just happened to be black and was killed by white people, but it was no more revelant a murder than any other, it just made the government look good.

    And again, so what? Because one bad memorial is up, that's an excuse to waste more money on more bad memorials? How about we just get rid of all memorials made to people who did nothing whatsoever and quit making new ones.

    Why not a memorial to victims for once, especially the victims of the most famous murders ever? They were nowhere near perfect but I haven't got a problem with a memorial to them if it teaches many people who see it that these people were more than just victims of a murderer and perhaps that some people give a damn.
    So they should get a memorial for no other reason than they were victims of the "most famous murder ever" and this will teach people that they were more than just victims of a murder?? We are giving them a memorial JUST because they were victims of a murder, to teach people they were more than just victims of a murder!! I want to repeat that a third time but I am sure the irony can not possibly be more clear. The logic is flawed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jenni Shelden
    replied
    Hiya,

    oh look i agree with you Neal (ha how about that!) and i certainly wouldn't call your view a socialist one.

    Jenni

    ps i don't think it is fair to describe them as whores in life and whores in death - they were more than just a label after all, weren't they..

    Leave a comment:


  • Neal Shelden
    replied
    I tend to be in favour of the memorial to the victims, probably no surprise there? I don't agree that the murders done by Ted Bundy or Peter Sutcliffe are as famous. No way, Jack the Ripper's known all over the world, but not many would remember the previous two examples.
    Yeah, these women were not perfect, over the years I've changed my opinion about them many times. I tend to hold it against them more that they were seemingly bad mothers rather than prostitutes. But why not a memorial?
    After all, how many memorials have been up to police officers when they got killed, I'm not really complaining about that, by I didn't ask them to join the police so I can't see why they need a special memorial when they are killed, especially in the US where it could be seen as a memorial to crap gun laws!
    In this country we had a memorial put down to Stephen Lawrence because he just happened to be black and was killed by white people, but it was no more revelant a murder than any other, it just made the government look good.
    And why should there be a blue plaque put to Abberline, the man who failed to find Jack the Ripper! Why not a memorial to victims for once, especially the victims of the most famous murders ever? They were nowhere near perfect but I haven't got a problem with a memorial to them if it teaches many people who see it that these people were more than just victims of a murderer and perhaps that some people give a damn.

    Leave a comment:


  • perrymason
    Guest replied
    If you speaking about the victims in a Canonical Group specifically, they should be remembered for being unwitting accomplices in gruesome, sensationalized stories.

    If you talking about any LVP innocent victim of a savage killer who ruthlessly "ripped" their bodies and their lives from them....they should be remembered as mothers, daughters, sisters and girlfriends. With desperate lives, and little if any hope for changing that situation in their lifetimes. Women who struggled to survive so that they could struggle to survive another day. Like any kind of life was at least some kind of life. Im frankly surprised that suicide rates for these women werent through the roof.

    Best regards all.
    Last edited by ; 04-23-2009, 03:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    I suspect it's a question of numbers. If Jack had killed 30 or 40 then obviously he would have been even more famous than he is now, but the interest in the victims would be less. It's something to do with the saying that goes something like, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

    Even within the "canonical five" there are marked differences in levels of interest, with Kelly being the "face" of the victims (supported by Eddowes) and Stride, Chapman and Nichols being pushed into the shadows.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X