I would like to suggest, that the reason this man was kept like this, is because the evil in this world seems to run the high courts and justice operations. Pedophiles are everywhere, and from what I have read (from survivors of such people) they hold very high positions. Of course they do, they favour power and control over love and peace. The pedophiles in the high places kept Robert Maudsley there. They fear people like him and he was punished for his hatred of them and willingness to act, and not his actions, which were so obviously due to having been abused so brutally as a child himself.
It surprises me that it was public who demanded stricter punishment for four (albeit varying degrees of gruesome) killings of criminals (of the sort that ruined his own life) rather than innocents. I'd sooner think the legal system would be strict in fear of encouraging vigilantism with softer terms and here I read it starts other way around, crowd clamouring for harsher sentence.
I am also baffled by repeated returns to the same cell when other versions were working and there was even a request to rid both them and himself of the bother of holding him confined like that by poison.
I wonder if being a drug addicted sex worker made him kind of unsympathetic in the eyes of many.
I wonder also about that title of the most dangerous man, cause like frenzied or not, he has no training and those two last murders weren't exactly strategically masterful assassinations. That actually hints at possible sensationalism, some investment in building a legend, both by the title and by insistence on the sort of containment as oppossed to other options. They show off by elaborately imprisoning a guy with such reputation.
As for turning his "murderous rage on to other predators, not the ones that caused his abuse in the first place", at least according to his words, that was less of choice and more lack of choice and he would actually prefer it the other way around.
It seems to be the case that he would have preferred it to be his parents. I can understand that. He really had a lot of pent-up hostility. It's unfortunate, but it shows what abuse can do to a person. Who knows what he might have turned out like if he had remained with the orphanage.
I would estimate that the public demanding a harsher sentence would be down to the way Robert Maudsely killed. To stab someone to death then smash their skull in takes strength and suggests fury. Compare that to a killer who kills with a single shot to the head then walks away. The end result is the same, both are murderers but the perception of the public would be different. One looks ‘evil’ the other less so.
Similarly, I don’t know what else was going on in the news at this time. If there had been other brutal killers incarcerated during a similar time frame, this might also influence public perception.
We forget sometimes that psychiatry has moved on. Now we look to causality, childhood abuse, environmental factors, poverty etc as being factors that create a killer. Our views are likely more sympathetic now than they were then. Our access to information is vastly different now than then.
It’s very possible that the public would look mostly at the brutality of the murders rather than viewing Maudsely more compassionately given the fact he was a child victim of abuse himself and how that abuse would impact his mental state and associated behaviours.
Say: How easy is it to kill someone with a melted plastic knife?
There are vids online showing prison riots. Some of the best ones show prisoners being sat on and secured while another prisoner does the stabbing. The "shank" or stabbing instrument is always metal. These videos sometimes show the stabber stabbing so many times, they take a break. They literally rest for the exertion of stabbing their enemy.
However, some of these guys, despite being punctured like a pin cushion survive. In fact, of the riot vids available to me, none of them die.
Perhaps Robert has a rather nasty and insightful approach to killing?
How quickly are the riots ussually supressed and how quickly does medical help arrive? I think that might go a long a way in justifying the difference between survival od folks assaulted in riots and those two guys killed privately.
Then there are spots from which you can bleed out real quick, so... Also, children managed to kill their classmates by puncturing their lung with a wooden handle of a painting brush (solid round mass might have some advantage here over thin flat flexible eating utensil).
But the bit about needing to rest and metal vs plastic does say something about the level of frenzy. Adrenaline is funky chemical. Ok, his young self was likely more dangerous than I assumed in my previous comment (though that "the most" I still consider too cocksure and tabloid-esque). Hardly applies now. Unless they suspect he spent all this time plotting revenge on them and discovering unexpected super efficient ways to do it.
I wondered about the blood as well. Perhaps he cleaned up in his personal sink by taking a sponge bath and changing clothes. Maybe the bloody clothes were under the bed with the body.
And they let someone like Jimmy Saville run free and abuse dozens of children for decades. And Maudsley’s monstrous parents as well. Pretty messed up all around. In spite of his murders he has my pity. Another wasted life due to the awful actions of people who betray a child’s trust this horribly and relentlessly. I try not to judge, but if anyone belongs in that tenth circle of hell, it’s them.
Indeed, I agree with you. Interestingly, many times in his history, Robert would have been far better off, had they just left him well alone. Had they left him in the orphanage, none of this would have happened, but they didn't leave him alone there, nor would they leave him alone in other occasions either.
Well said. I was not aware that it was available for more than just terminal illness. I say it's a good thing. People should have the choice. They should never be boxed into an existence that they can't live with.
Overall, what is your belief on the matter/idea ? Yay it's a good thing or nay we shouldn't be able to choose when we die?
Interestingly, I had a whole right to die debate with someone where I was very supportive of the idea, and the other person had deep reservations due to where the road led.
Time has passed, and she was right. What she feared has come to pass, and I changed my perspective on it since. There is an interesting issue when it comes to solutions to problems such as that. As well-meaning as the intention is, it is often hijacked by people with nefarious intentions. If you want to read the debate, I have it up in a post. Let me know, and I will link it.
It is interesting how things can be hijacked by nefarious intentions. When you're in the outside it appears all for one and one for all, it actually gets hard to imagine that there isn't total agreement when one can't hear any of the internal debate. It appears to the outsider like there is uniform agreement with the tactics and strategies that get used and with the strict discipline and perpetual flexing that goes on to put a person in their place - it's a bit hard to imagine anything but strict uniform agreement in the inside so, with a lack of information flowing to the outsider it then looks as though the entire group is in total agreement with all that has and is being done.
Your comment made me realize something about a different matter I've been grappling with but similar with regards to hijacking. I had a hard time imagining that there were actual factions that existed as it seemed like a clever way to diffuse blame onto a phantom figure to which I could not look to hold accountable or blame as this nameless, figureless character has never revealed themselves in earnest, this adding to the growing aggressive defensive stance I have been taking.
If there truly are factions and there is some discord as to the events that have transpired, then it puts a different spin on things for me. It still doesn't really explain why no one would just have a frank conversation with me about what has really happened- that still sits uneasy for me as I know I would have informed the person what is real and what is not so they weren't spinning on these matters that weren't even real issues. Perhaps there's been some silencing going on or something. If this were the case, I would owe a doctor an apology.
Thanks for your reply - it gave me another perspective on this other issue. I appreciate that.
I really don't understand not letting him have cyanide. You save money and open up a cell to use or threaten with. Not sure what the British prison system's laws are, but isolation and suffering have to be a violation.
Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK yes, though a bill has recently been discussed in Parliament to introduce it under strict parameters. That bill has not yet passed to my knowledge.
It’s the assist part that is problematic rather than the suicide part.
The jury didn't happen to get paid off some illigitimately distributed insurance money so that they would vote to keep him locked in a basement after he had already suffered from perpetual, illigitimate, abuse which had been inflicted on him through a conspiracy to misuse power in a disgusting display externalized gluttony, which was self serving, apathetic, and served to cause an ever growing spire of injustice to emerge, which contained the stench of rotten yeast from the desiccated parts of legitimacy that the Jury had disintegrated in one fell swoop of greedy, sticky fingers that revealed the true nature of each standup member of the flaccid ding dong jury gang of ass goblins and bum crumbs, did they? I mean, that would just be the icing on the cake.
Kidding aside, great write up as always. You always create an entertaining narrative which is always worth the time to read. Thanks for the great work.
That is something - I was not aware of that. . In Canada it's just legal all around to have assisted suicide for anything that you're terminally ill for. You just have to go in for counseling and stuff to make sure that that's what you want to do.
The US always seems to have a vocal group that wants to dictate what is moral. Who's to say that somebody has to live if they are in agony? Because it offends someone's religious belief system they should impose upon the world their interpretation of morality?
For the record, I'm pro-choice on this as much as I am on the abortion issue where females should be able to self determine as it's their body's, so too should be the right to determine if a person wants to live. Morality seems to be an ongoing hot button issue in the US.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people seem to think that they have some right to dictate another person's internal belief system. In my opinion, If that person is causing no harm to anyone then no one has any business dictating what's in that persons head.
It isn't just for terminal illness. They have offered it to people, like veterans, calling their help lines due to depression. There is also a rather famous case of a woman who was chronically ill, but wanted to live, but because of the failures of the health care system there, she ended up choosing MAID, and did a commercial for them. She specifically stated that she wanted to live, but the lack of effective and timely treatment, she saw no future.
Having blow up your thread last week, I will confine (for the minute!!) remarks to the notion USA prison guards out child crimes to other prisoners.
Respectfully, that is not needed. Notorious crimes are covered in the news and prisoners, all of them, troll the news constantly. Bc who knows who will end up your cellie?
Prisoners often perform administrative tasks in custody. That is also a means to know the convictions of others.
In addition, prisoners are expected to carry proof of their charges - for presentation to other prisoners.
However, for example in CA, there has to be a home for these men somewhere: So CA has at least one prison which houses about 30% sex offenders. Maine had a facility where 100% were sex offenders!!
These are typically low level one security housings as the non sex offenders are serving short sentences (or are near their release date) and are less likely to murder them on sight.
It is not needed for the guards to snitch (However, if a guard uses the expression "piece of shit" he means: chester)
In CA, if a prisoner kills another prisoner, sex offender or not, the warden has statutory authority to extend their sentences by five years. (that sound about right?) AND the appropriate DA MAY pick it up for a trial in a court.
California has a duty to housing and protect the thousands of sex criminals in their system. Given the numbers, CA appears to take it seriously. Any guard purposefully contributing to the death of prisoners could be both civilly and criminally liable.
I would like to suggest, that the reason this man was kept like this, is because the evil in this world seems to run the high courts and justice operations. Pedophiles are everywhere, and from what I have read (from survivors of such people) they hold very high positions. Of course they do, they favour power and control over love and peace. The pedophiles in the high places kept Robert Maudsley there. They fear people like him and he was punished for his hatred of them and willingness to act, and not his actions, which were so obviously due to having been abused so brutally as a child himself.
Interesting perspective, and I can understand why you would think so.
It surprises me that it was public who demanded stricter punishment for four (albeit varying degrees of gruesome) killings of criminals (of the sort that ruined his own life) rather than innocents. I'd sooner think the legal system would be strict in fear of encouraging vigilantism with softer terms and here I read it starts other way around, crowd clamouring for harsher sentence.
I am also baffled by repeated returns to the same cell when other versions were working and there was even a request to rid both them and himself of the bother of holding him confined like that by poison.
I wonder if being a drug addicted sex worker made him kind of unsympathetic in the eyes of many.
I wonder also about that title of the most dangerous man, cause like frenzied or not, he has no training and those two last murders weren't exactly strategically masterful assassinations. That actually hints at possible sensationalism, some investment in building a legend, both by the title and by insistence on the sort of containment as oppossed to other options. They show off by elaborately imprisoning a guy with such reputation.
As for turning his "murderous rage on to other predators, not the ones that caused his abuse in the first place", at least according to his words, that was less of choice and more lack of choice and he would actually prefer it the other way around.
It seems to be the case that he would have preferred it to be his parents. I can understand that. He really had a lot of pent-up hostility. It's unfortunate, but it shows what abuse can do to a person. Who knows what he might have turned out like if he had remained with the orphanage.
Yeah, sometimes an institution like that really is a better choice.
Indeed
I would estimate that the public demanding a harsher sentence would be down to the way Robert Maudsely killed. To stab someone to death then smash their skull in takes strength and suggests fury. Compare that to a killer who kills with a single shot to the head then walks away. The end result is the same, both are murderers but the perception of the public would be different. One looks ‘evil’ the other less so.
Similarly, I don’t know what else was going on in the news at this time. If there had been other brutal killers incarcerated during a similar time frame, this might also influence public perception.
We forget sometimes that psychiatry has moved on. Now we look to causality, childhood abuse, environmental factors, poverty etc as being factors that create a killer. Our views are likely more sympathetic now than they were then. Our access to information is vastly different now than then.
It’s very possible that the public would look mostly at the brutality of the murders rather than viewing Maudsely more compassionately given the fact he was a child victim of abuse himself and how that abuse would impact his mental state and associated behaviours.
That is a very good point
That might explain it. Thanks.
LOL! Great post!!
Say: How easy is it to kill someone with a melted plastic knife?
There are vids online showing prison riots. Some of the best ones show prisoners being sat on and secured while another prisoner does the stabbing. The "shank" or stabbing instrument is always metal. These videos sometimes show the stabber stabbing so many times, they take a break. They literally rest for the exertion of stabbing their enemy.
However, some of these guys, despite being punctured like a pin cushion survive. In fact, of the riot vids available to me, none of them die.
Perhaps Robert has a rather nasty and insightful approach to killing?
Or, perhaps he is just more motivated.
How quickly are the riots ussually supressed and how quickly does medical help arrive? I think that might go a long a way in justifying the difference between survival od folks assaulted in riots and those two guys killed privately.
Then there are spots from which you can bleed out real quick, so... Also, children managed to kill their classmates by puncturing their lung with a wooden handle of a painting brush (solid round mass might have some advantage here over thin flat flexible eating utensil).
But the bit about needing to rest and metal vs plastic does say something about the level of frenzy. Adrenaline is funky chemical. Ok, his young self was likely more dangerous than I assumed in my previous comment (though that "the most" I still consider too cocksure and tabloid-esque). Hardly applies now. Unless they suspect he spent all this time plotting revenge on them and discovering unexpected super efficient ways to do it.
Yes, good considerations all.
He was more dangerous AND as Athena presents he thought he might be able to induce victims to come along into his cell for a good time.
As they say he appears to have thrown himself into the task. Yet, he exited the kill site NOT covered in blood? More planning than OJ apparently.
I wondered about the blood as well. Perhaps he cleaned up in his personal sink by taking a sponge bath and changing clothes. Maybe the bloody clothes were under the bed with the body.
Yes. He cleaned sufficiently as to not be obvious - he invited other victims to come on in, probably for sex right?
Can't exactly ask guys over to check out the dead body...
I doubt for sex. Child predators wouldn't have an interest in adult men, and his main target was child predators.
And they let someone like Jimmy Saville run free and abuse dozens of children for decades. And Maudsley’s monstrous parents as well. Pretty messed up all around. In spite of his murders he has my pity. Another wasted life due to the awful actions of people who betray a child’s trust this horribly and relentlessly. I try not to judge, but if anyone belongs in that tenth circle of hell, it’s them.
Indeed, I agree with you. Interestingly, many times in his history, Robert would have been far better off, had they just left him well alone. Had they left him in the orphanage, none of this would have happened, but they didn't leave him alone there, nor would they leave him alone in other occasions either.
That’s true, too. So many bad people in his life. Relentless abuse. Hard to believe.
Well said. I was not aware that it was available for more than just terminal illness. I say it's a good thing. People should have the choice. They should never be boxed into an existence that they can't live with.
Overall, what is your belief on the matter/idea ? Yay it's a good thing or nay we shouldn't be able to choose when we die?
Interestingly, I had a whole right to die debate with someone where I was very supportive of the idea, and the other person had deep reservations due to where the road led.
Time has passed, and she was right. What she feared has come to pass, and I changed my perspective on it since. There is an interesting issue when it comes to solutions to problems such as that. As well-meaning as the intention is, it is often hijacked by people with nefarious intentions. If you want to read the debate, I have it up in a post. Let me know, and I will link it.
It is interesting how things can be hijacked by nefarious intentions. When you're in the outside it appears all for one and one for all, it actually gets hard to imagine that there isn't total agreement when one can't hear any of the internal debate. It appears to the outsider like there is uniform agreement with the tactics and strategies that get used and with the strict discipline and perpetual flexing that goes on to put a person in their place - it's a bit hard to imagine anything but strict uniform agreement in the inside so, with a lack of information flowing to the outsider it then looks as though the entire group is in total agreement with all that has and is being done.
Your comment made me realize something about a different matter I've been grappling with but similar with regards to hijacking. I had a hard time imagining that there were actual factions that existed as it seemed like a clever way to diffuse blame onto a phantom figure to which I could not look to hold accountable or blame as this nameless, figureless character has never revealed themselves in earnest, this adding to the growing aggressive defensive stance I have been taking.
If there truly are factions and there is some discord as to the events that have transpired, then it puts a different spin on things for me. It still doesn't really explain why no one would just have a frank conversation with me about what has really happened- that still sits uneasy for me as I know I would have informed the person what is real and what is not so they weren't spinning on these matters that weren't even real issues. Perhaps there's been some silencing going on or something. If this were the case, I would owe a doctor an apology.
Thanks for your reply - it gave me another perspective on this other issue. I appreciate that.
Not a problem
I really don't understand not letting him have cyanide. You save money and open up a cell to use or threaten with. Not sure what the British prison system's laws are, but isolation and suffering have to be a violation.
Likely, suicide is against the law, but I'm not certain.
Good point.
Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK yes, though a bill has recently been discussed in Parliament to introduce it under strict parameters. That bill has not yet passed to my knowledge.
It’s the assist part that is problematic rather than the suicide part.
Makes sense
The jury didn't happen to get paid off some illigitimately distributed insurance money so that they would vote to keep him locked in a basement after he had already suffered from perpetual, illigitimate, abuse which had been inflicted on him through a conspiracy to misuse power in a disgusting display externalized gluttony, which was self serving, apathetic, and served to cause an ever growing spire of injustice to emerge, which contained the stench of rotten yeast from the desiccated parts of legitimacy that the Jury had disintegrated in one fell swoop of greedy, sticky fingers that revealed the true nature of each standup member of the flaccid ding dong jury gang of ass goblins and bum crumbs, did they? I mean, that would just be the icing on the cake.
Kidding aside, great write up as always. You always create an entertaining narrative which is always worth the time to read. Thanks for the great work.
Thank you, Chris
Suicide is illegal in the mid East, Africa, and Asia. It's no longer illegal in the United States, Europe, Canada or Australia from what I understand.
In the States, there are places that allow for it, but they number in the minority.
That is something - I was not aware of that. . In Canada it's just legal all around to have assisted suicide for anything that you're terminally ill for. You just have to go in for counseling and stuff to make sure that that's what you want to do.
The US always seems to have a vocal group that wants to dictate what is moral. Who's to say that somebody has to live if they are in agony? Because it offends someone's religious belief system they should impose upon the world their interpretation of morality?
For the record, I'm pro-choice on this as much as I am on the abortion issue where females should be able to self determine as it's their body's, so too should be the right to determine if a person wants to live. Morality seems to be an ongoing hot button issue in the US.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people seem to think that they have some right to dictate another person's internal belief system. In my opinion, If that person is causing no harm to anyone then no one has any business dictating what's in that persons head.
It isn't just for terminal illness. They have offered it to people, like veterans, calling their help lines due to depression. There is also a rather famous case of a woman who was chronically ill, but wanted to live, but because of the failures of the health care system there, she ended up choosing MAID, and did a commercial for them. She specifically stated that she wanted to live, but the lack of effective and timely treatment, she saw no future.
And they let someone like Jimmy Seville run free. And this man’s parents as well. Pretty messed up all around.
Having blow up your thread last week, I will confine (for the minute!!) remarks to the notion USA prison guards out child crimes to other prisoners.
Respectfully, that is not needed. Notorious crimes are covered in the news and prisoners, all of them, troll the news constantly. Bc who knows who will end up your cellie?
Prisoners often perform administrative tasks in custody. That is also a means to know the convictions of others.
In addition, prisoners are expected to carry proof of their charges - for presentation to other prisoners.
However, for example in CA, there has to be a home for these men somewhere: So CA has at least one prison which houses about 30% sex offenders. Maine had a facility where 100% were sex offenders!!
These are typically low level one security housings as the non sex offenders are serving short sentences (or are near their release date) and are less likely to murder them on sight.
It is not needed for the guards to snitch (However, if a guard uses the expression "piece of shit" he means: chester)
In CA, if a prisoner kills another prisoner, sex offender or not, the warden has statutory authority to extend their sentences by five years. (that sound about right?) AND the appropriate DA MAY pick it up for a trial in a court.
California has a duty to housing and protect the thousands of sex criminals in their system. Given the numbers, CA appears to take it seriously. Any guard purposefully contributing to the death of prisoners could be both civilly and criminally liable.