Serial Killer Jack Trawick writes Neil O'Connor's Mother a Letter (Caution: Graphic Content)
Neil
"forward" it to my mother. He took great precautions as to not offend me and
he wasn't actually rude to my mother in any way...at least I didn't think
so...don't read if you're easily offended...here we go:
A letter from Jack Trawick to my Mother.
*christmas 2001
Dear Mother of Neil,
Although I may have displayed some particularly disturbing anti-social
behavior (in the past) I truly believe that you have been given some erroneous
information that is skewed from reality. For example: It is true that I did
kidnap, rape, murder, and sexually mutilate a 25 year old pregnant woman.
However, what you may not realize is two-fold: #1 I gave Ms. Michelle Thomas
the choice of either my knife in her chest or to penetrate her sexually. It
was Michelle that pulled her own panties down and spread her legs and made
herself available for sexual intercourse. #2 Before I killed Michelle I did
open up her belly so she could see her baby before she died. Michelle may have
been in too much emotional or maybe even physical shock to appreciate my
efforts but I did make a sincere effort at being sensitive to her special
situation. Also, if her full term baby had been a male I would have given it
the best of medical care, however Ms. Michelle Thomas' baby was a female. So I
sent Ms. Michelle Thomas and her daughter to whatever "part 2" they deserved.
Anyway - regardless of what you may hear - I do have a warm, compassionate
side. Right before Michelle took her last breath I did explain to her that she
was an extremely attractive woman and although the sex wasn't her ideal
situation - she was great. (I kept Michelle's nipples and her clit at home
until the time of my arrest.)
I hope the above shows that I'm not this horrible creature from the dark side.
Happy Holidays,
J
P.S. I hope you and your family have the greatest and happiest holiday season
you have ever experienced
Mr. Grouch
forever and who cares about his memoirs?
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> Why are you posting this shit from Trawick? The sick bastard is put away
> forever and who cares about his memoirs?
I do. Thanks again, Neil.
Martha
tiny dancer
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
> The following is a letter that Jack Trawick sent to me so that I could
> "forward" it to my mother. He took great precautions as to not offend me
and
> he wasn't actually rude to my mother in any way...at least I didn't think
> so...don't read if you're easily offended...here we go:
Who is this person? I'm afraid I don't know the case?
td
TdN
I never read the Trawick postings myself, but I appreciate the fact
that O'Connor now flags them so I can avoid them. I found them very
disturbing when they were just showing up untagged; O'Connor is to be
commended for responding to people's wishes to have them flagged.
I just read two very interesting books about the psychology of serial
killers--"Why They Kill," by Richard Rhodes (a presentation of the
work of criminologist Lonnie Athens) and "Base Instincts: What Makes
Killers Kill" by neurologist Jonathan Pincus. I recommend them both
to at-c folks.
T.
JC
I'd rather you typed out more of what he wrote you about his childhood. BTW,
did you send this on to your mom?
JC
JC
"TdN" <triann...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:314a4ba6.02072...@posting.google.com...
I believe the former is one I read at the recommendation of Jack Olsen. A
fine and unique type of read. Criminologist Lonnie Athens is a very
interesting man.
JC
Neil
>> forever and who cares about his memoirs?
>
>I do. Thanks again, Neil.
I'm always here to help, Martha.
Neil
>that O'Connor now flags them so I can avoid them. I found them very
>disturbing when they were just showing up untagged; O'Connor is to be
>commended for responding to people's wishes to have them flagged.
Just to be clear, my first Jack Trawick post was "flagged" even moreso then the
ones I'm posting now.
>I just read two very interesting books about the psychology of serial
>killers--"Why They Kill," by Richard Rhodes (a presentation of the
>work of criminologist Lonnie Athens) and "Base Instincts: What Makes
>Killers Kill" by neurologist Jonathan Pincus. I recommend them both
>to at-c folks.
If you want to read a good book about serial killers "like" Trawick and what
makes them tick I'd recommend Sexual Homicide: Patterns & Motives by Ann
Burgess, et al. I put "like" in quotes because I think Trawick is unique among
sexually motivated serial killers. In my opinion, he has even Bundy beaten.
- Neil
Neil
>did you send this on to your mom?
Yeah, she asked me not to show her any more of Trawick's stuff.
Neil
Jack Trawick is a serial killer from Alabama who is responsible for at least 5
murders and is a suspect is many other cases. Jack has hinted to me that the
number is around 14 or 15, but those don't include what he would call "perfect
murders" in which he couldn't even tie himself to the crime if he tried.
- Neil
mothra...@hotmail.com
<gasp>
You're joking, right? Or maybe Neil does have that kind of relationship
with his mother. <gasp> all the same.
And I agree: I want more about his childhood. Neil's saying he believes
Jack was "born this way" seems a *little* less likely after the xmas
message. IMHO.
Martha
mothra...@hotmail.com
Thanks for the recommendations. I'll look for them.
And thanks for being an adult about the Trawick postings. Would that
the rest of the world were so sensible.
Martha
Martha
>
> "Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
> news:20020722171336...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> > The following is a letter that Jack Trawick sent to me so that I could
> > "forward" it to my mother. He took great precautions as to not offend me
> and
> > he wasn't actually rude to my mother in any way...at least I didn't think
> > so...don't read if you're easily offended...here we go:
>
> Who is this person? I'm afraid I don't know the case?
Google "Jack Trawick" and you'll find news stories--or, if you're lucky,
Neil will send you some.
Martha
tiny dancer
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
Well I guess I don't understand how 'you' fit into this? And your mother??
I haven't heard about this before, is the story about Michelle true??
td
JC
<mothra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3D3D55...@erols.com...
> JC wrote:
> >
> > <mothra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D3CA6...@erols.com...
> > > Mr. Grouch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why are you posting this shit from Trawick? The sick bastard is
put
> > away
> > > > forever and who cares about his memoirs?
> > >
> > > I do. Thanks again, Neil.
> > >
> > > Martha
> >
> > I'd rather you typed out more of what he wrote you about his childhood.
BTW,
> > did you send this on to your mom?
> >
>
> <gasp>
>
> You're joking, right? Or maybe Neil does have that kind of relationship
> with his mother. <gasp> all the same.
*#SMACK#* on Martha's back - get a breath, gurlfren. No I wasn't joking, I
was asking because I wanted to know.
> And I agree: I want more about his childhood. Neil's saying he believes
> Jack was "born this way" seems a *little* less likely after the xmas
> message. IMHO.
>
> Martha
I am always interested in the nature v. nurture stuff. Prolly both, IMO,
regardless of Xmas card to the mom.
JC
JC
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
> >BTW,
> >did you send this on to your mom?
>
> Yeah, she asked me not to show her any more of Trawick's stuff.
Gee, that's a shocker.
Shame on you, now. I bet your mother worries about you. (Please tell me your
mother is nothing like Trawick's.)
Thx for book rec in other post, I've printed it out.
JC
JC
among
> sexually motivated serial killers. In my opinion, he has even Bundy
beaten.
>
> - Neil
Beaten in what way? Number of victims? There is speculation that Bundy
killed upwards of 100. I believe it's probably much less than that, but more
than anyone ever knew... I don't believe he'd have beaten Bundy in terms of
depravity.
JC
TdN
> >I never read the Trawick postings myself, but I appreciate the fact
> >that O'Connor now flags them so I can avoid them. I found them very
> >disturbing when they were just showing up untagged; O'Connor is to be
> >commended for responding to people's wishes to have them flagged.
>
> Just to be clear, my first Jack Trawick post was "flagged" even moreso then the
> ones I'm posting now.
Then I must have missed that first one. The one I read had a
cautionary note at the end of the message header, which didn't show up
in my newsreader's list of posts; I had read far more than I wanted to
of Trawick's violent fantasies before I saw the caution. As I say, I
am grateful for the "flags" you've been putting on your posts.
>
> >I just read two very interesting books about the psychology of serial
> >killers--"Why They Kill," by Richard Rhodes (a presentation of the
> >work of criminologist Lonnie Athens) and "Base Instincts: What Makes
> >Killers Kill" by neurologist Jonathan Pincus. I recommend them both
> >to at-c folks.
>
> If you want to read a good book about serial killers "like" Trawick and what
> makes them tick I'd recommend Sexual Homicide: Patterns & Motives by Ann
> Burgess, et al. I put "like" in quotes because I think Trawick is unique among
> sexually motivated serial killers. In my opinion, he has even Bundy beaten.
Um, is it a competition or something? See, this is what troubles me,
on a broader level, about this whole thing. I'm willing to believe
that this may be an artifact of language and/or my own
hypersensitivity, but what I pick up from those posts of yours I've
read is a kind of "connoisseurship"--almost the pride of a collector
who's showing off a particularly grotesque specimen.
Admittedly, I haven't read most of your posts, so it's quite possible
that I may be WAY off base, and this is certainly speaking to my
ambivalence about my interest in true crime (and a.t-c), not to
mention my RL literary involvement with crime fiction...
If I'm completely misunderstanding you, I apologize. I'm certainly
not trying to flame you or insult you--I think English-speaking
culture, in general, is fascinated by serial killers, and the
difference between "trying to understand" and "fandom" is often in the
eye of the beholder. Speaking only for myself, what turned me off
about the posts of yours I did read was what I saw as a lack of
context and what felt to me--subjectively, I know--like a
"collector's" trotting out his prize exhibits.
It may also be a particular ickiness I have about what I've perceived
as the particular mystique around Trawick, which I've never understood
(or cared to). I have a very strong sense of there being some people
in the world who think of this (to me, as I understand it, as an
amateur researcher and very occasional crime writer) quite ordinary
sexually violent/rage-filled/misogynistic/brain damaged killer of four
women as some kind of Kerouac figure (or maybe William S. Burroughs is
a better example?)
Please let me emphasize that the above isn't a comment on *your
posts*, of which I've only read a couple. You may very well have
posted some of Trawick's writings and tried to put them in context or
shared some thoughts of your own about them or made some larger point.
Unfortunately, I simply don't know whether or not you do because I
choose not to read Trawick's violent, rage-filled words; that would
feel like an assault to me. Obviously, there are other people on the
group who appreciate your posts of Trawick's words; I may even be in
the minority in not wanting to read them.
I hope that you'll take the above not as an insult (which it isn't
intended to be), but as a datapoint about one a.t-c reader's reaction
(which is all it is intended to be, and all it can be).
Best,
T.
mothra...@hotmail.com
I agree. I think--as an amateur--that someone born with a prediliction
for sadism who was *not* abused in some way as a child would find a
healthy, legal outlet for hir sexual needs; combine the inborn leaning
with abuse, and you get a predator.
Martha
mothra...@hotmail.com
I dunno. I learned recently that Bundy was essentially a necrophile,
and somehow knowing (or believing) that his victims were dead first
makes his crimes to me anyway a *little* less heinous. It's hard for me
to imagine anything *more* heinous that Trawick's rape and murder of the
child before her mother's eyes.
Martha
Neil
>depravity.
I don't believe you know very much about Ted Bundy.
- Neil
JC
<mothra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3D3EA2...@erols.com...
Yes, okay, maybe I'll wait to decide which guy is most evil. (However, there
is alot of info about Bundy which suggests much more extensive depravity
than he ever admitted or which will ever be definitively proved. Necrophilia
is the least of it.)
JC
Neil
done for mass murder, only Trawick is obscure.
>but what I pick up from those posts of >yours I've
>read is a kind of >"connoisseurship"--almost the pride of a >collector
>who's showing off a particularly grotesque >specimen.
I wouldn't call it "pride." I feel lucky to know Jack and I consider him a
friend, not some sort of side-show freak who I'm showing off.
The name Jack Trawick hardly rings a bell in anyones' ears when it comes to
serial murder. I want going to change all of that. I want to make Jack
Trawick the international superstar that he deserves to be.
>difference between "trying to understand" >and "fandom" is often in the
>eye of the beholder.
I guess that you could call me a "fan" of serial murder and crime in general if
you wanted to, but I'm not a "fan" of Trawick's. I often write to men in
prison, but I have not once written a "fan letter" to someone in prison. I
wrote Trawick because I knew nothing about him other than what I heard on a few
websites -- that he was a serial killer/rapist who is proud of his crimes and
admits to them. He sounded like someone who I wanted to get to know better and
after a couple of letters I knew that assumption was correct. I find the man
intelligent, likeable, interesting -- hell, he's just an all around great guy.
I'm really sick of all of this "let's put this in the proper context before
discussing whatever crime" bullshit. Most of you, like me, read about crime
for the gory details.
Has anyone here ever read a book by Gary C. King? Well, I've read several and
I always skip through the same parts, the parts where he describes the police
investigation. I get right down to the bloody details and that's all I'm
interested in. King, putting things in "proper context" with all of his filler
is just fine, but it's still the blood that sells the books -- make no mistake
about that.
- Neil
Sunny
>The name Jack Trawick hardly rings a bell in anyones' ears when it comes to
>serial murder. I want going to change all of that. I want to make Jack
>Trawick the international superstar that he deserves to be.
To what purpose??
Sunny
>>Um, is it a competition or something?
>Well, yeah...sort of. Trawick has done for serial murder what Eric Harris has
>done for mass murder, only Trawick is obscure.
What exactly has he done "for" serial murder, exactly? Made it more
entertaining??? I wonder how the victim's families would feel knowing
that people such as yourself think that this killer is really cool, a
"great guy", an interesting fellow who you'd like to befriend and make
more famous?
>>but what I pick up from those posts of >yours I've
>>read is a kind of >"connoisseurship"--almost the pride of a >collector
>>who's showing off a particularly grotesque >specimen.
>
>I wouldn't call it "pride." I feel lucky to know Jack and I consider him a
>friend, not some sort of side-show freak who I'm showing off.
The latter may be the impression you are giving anyway.
>The name Jack Trawick hardly rings a bell in anyones' ears when it comes to
>serial murder. I want going to change all of that. I want to make Jack
>Trawick the international superstar that he deserves to be.
>
>>difference between "trying to understand" >and "fandom" is often in the
>>eye of the beholder.
>
>I guess that you could call me a "fan" of serial murder and crime in general if
>you wanted to, but I'm not a "fan" of Trawick's. I often write to men in
>prison, but I have not once written a "fan letter" to someone in prison.
Are you a journalist? Why do you approach men in prison, out of
curiosity?
>I wrote Trawick because I knew nothing about him other than what I heard on a few
>websites -- that he was a serial killer/rapist who is proud of his crimes and
>admits to them. He sounded like someone who I wanted to get to know better
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
why?
>and
>after a couple of letters I knew that assumption was correct. I find the man
>intelligent, likeable, interesting -- hell, he's just an all around great guy.
So you admire him for what he has done?
>I'm really sick of all of this "let's put this in the proper context before
>discussing whatever crime" bullshit. Most of you, like me, read about crime
>for the gory details.
Do you understand why people question your admiration for this guy?
Just wondering.
IBegg2Differ
>discussing whatever crime" bullshit. Most of you, like me, read about crime
>for the gory details.
>
>Has anyone here ever read a book by Gary C. King? Well, I've read several
>and
>I always skip through the same parts, the parts where he describes the police
>investigation. I get right down to the bloody details and that's all I'm
>interested in. King, putting things in "proper context" with all of his
>filler
>is just fine, but it's still the blood that sells the books -- make no
>mistake
>about that.
>
>- Neil
Actually, I find that the reverse is true for me. When choosing books to read,
I usually opt for the ones with less gore and more insight into both the
parties to the crime and the investigation. Some of the crimes may be
particularly brutal or grotesque, but if there is more than one book on the
same case, I'll choose the one that spends fewer pages describing the gore and
more pages describing the mind of the perp, the relationships between the
parties, the investigation, etc.
IMO, this is what makes it more enjoyable to read, say, an Ann Rule or Jack
Olsen book than the National Enquirer.
JC
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
JC
JC
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
Context may not be of interest to you, but it is to me. (Thx to the person
who wrote this orig post about context etc. It's excellent.) As for the
gore, I never used to be able to read it. What I eventually figured out
though, for me, is that the gore and nastiness are as revealing about
killers as the less gruesome aspects of investigations. Also, I'm not
convinced it is the blood that sells tc books. Could be, but I tend to think
it's the RL 'murder mystery' aspect that makes people buy them. Or - you may
be right.
JC
Hester Mofet
JC
>>
I think there are many things that make people interested in true crime. The
reasons may be as varied as members of this newsgroups. Some read for the
legal aspects, the sense of "justice" when the perp comes to trial and is found
guilty. The "good guys" win in the end. Some books don't give away the perp
until he is caught and those appeal to the mystery lovers. Still others are
interested in the books for more prurient reasons - the identification with a
sexual sadist or masochist. The books satisfy certain readers the way horror
movies do. No matter how your life has gone to shit, at least the boogeyman
ain't at the door. Or if you are the boogeyman, at least you aren't locked up.
I've been a fan of true crime and especially books on serial killers for 23
years. I read Helter Skelter when I was 14 and have been hooked ever since. If
the words posted by Neil are truly from Jack Trawick, I hope he posts more.
There is the chance here to have some real insight into the mind of a killer,
even if it's just him fucking with us. I'd much rather read about him than
baked babies, politics or spouse killing.
Hester Mofet
P.S. If you can find it, read The Gates of Janus by Ian Brady.
Neil
>>
>> - Neil
>
>I don't believe you know very much about Ted Bundy.
>JC
I think I'm developing a crush on you. Don't tell anyone. I have a
girlfriend.
- Neil
Neil
>the words posted by Neil are truly from Jack Trawick, I hope he posts more.
I will and they are. Write to the man and ask him yourself.
Mr. Jack Trawick Z-561 (King of the South)
Holman Station, Apt. 6U7
P.O. Box 3700
Atmore, AL 30503
In the meantime, here are some Birmingham News articles about Jack:
Birmingham News (AL)
TAPED CONFESSION BY TRAWICK VIVIDLY DETAILS GACH KILLING
March 23, 1994
Section: NEWS
Page: 01-01
Steve Visser News staff writer
The prosecution rested this morning in the trial of accused serial killer Jack
Trawick, and the defense made the unusual move of calling a state psychologist
to defend him.
Kathleen Ronan of Taylor Harper Secure Medical Facility testified today that
Trawick had been diagnosed in 1970 as a paranoid schizophrenic with homicidal
impulses.
Defense lawyer Bill DelGrosso introduced medical records from two Birmingham
psychiatrists from Trawick's treatment in the 1970s.
On Tuesday, jurors heard a taperecorded confession in which Trawick explained
the killing of Stephanie Gach of Irondale. Trawick embellished his account to
try to get the death penalty, according to the confession.
""Let's stop this right here because we're about to lose the capital part of
this case,'' he cautioned investigators who were questioning him about Ms.
Gach's killing. ""I want capital.''
He then insisted he raped Ms. Gach and robbed her, which would add the
aggravating ingredients to elevate the killing to a capital crime.
He recanted the rape after investigators assured him he could get the electric
chair with only kidnapping and robbery as aggravating factors.
Trawick, who says he wants the death penalty but has pleaded not guilty by
reason of insanity, is on trial for capital murder in Jefferson County Circuit
Court.
He said he was surprised Ms. Gach of Irondale was 21 years old when he
kidnapped her from the parking lot of Sharpsburg Manor Apartments and killed
her in October 1992. ""I thought maybe she was 18 or 16,'' he said.
He said he followed her from Eastwood Mall to the apartment complex. He said he
bluffed her with a toy pistol when he pulled up beside her after she had exited
her car.
She started to disrobe, he said, Trawick, Page 2D Page 1D and then he pushed
her into the van he was driving, hit her with a ballpeen hammer, bound her
hands with rope and gagged her with duct tape.
""I strangled her and then I took a knife and stabbed her apparently in the
heart,'' he said.
He tossed the body in an illegal trash dump off Grants Mill Road.
He helped the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department find the physical evidence
to link him to the crime. He had stuffed Ms. Gach's clothes in a donation box,
leaving her purse beside it, which he hoped a bum would steal.
He directed investigators to the duct tape, rope, toy pistol and Old Hickory
boning knife he had used.
He said he covered his tracks well after the killing, cleaning the inside of
the van, washing the rope and cleaning the knife.
Forensic tests couldn't link any blood traces on the knife to Ms. Gach. Other
tests linked hair and a shirt button found in the van to her. DelGrosso said
the taped confession provides some of the best evidence that his client is
seriously mentally ill.
His task would be easier, he said, if the law allowed for a ""guilty but
insane'' rather than a ""not guilty by reason of insanity"' verdict since
jurors wouldn't have to feel they were absolving Trawick.
""What's wrong with guilty but insane?'' DelGrosso said after the trial
recessed. ""Are we afraid of putting sick people in the hospital?''
He described a 20-year picture of Trawick's chronic mental illness to jurors
Tuesday.
His client, who had sought castration to curb his hostility, was such a danger
that in 1990 his parole officer recommended he stay in prison, DelGrosso said.
Prosecutor Don Russell said Trawick is not legally insane. "He's not insane at
all,'' Russell said.
Trawick said he got his thrills from terrorizing women.
Birmingham News (AL)
TRAWICK VOWS TO KILL AGAIN IF HE DOESN'T DIE
November 29, 1993
Section: NEWS
Page: 01-01
Steve Visser News staff writer
Jack Harrison Trawick is looking older, although his lawyer would argue he
isn't wiser.
Trawick, Jefferson County's confessed serial killer, has written Circuit Judge
James Hard vowing to kill a prison worker or a ""freeworlder'' if not sentenced
to die after his upcoming trial for the October 1992 murder of Stephanie Gach.
""The state is going to be made to be responsible for me,'' Trawick said in an
interview at the Jefferson County Jail. ""You're going to either give me the
death penalty or fix me. You're not going to institutionalize me and maybe let
me go again.''
Trawick, 46, was scheduled to face a jury on a capital murder charge today, but
his trial has been delayed until January. Trawick had earlier entered a plea of
not guilty by reason of insanity.
His psychiatric evaluation isn't back from Taylor Hardin Secure Medical
Facility, Hard said.
Ron Holmes, an expert on serial killers, said Trawick's missive to the judge
could play right into the killer's psychology.
""He's almost reaching out to control the judge,'' said Holmes, a criminologist
and author at the University of Louisville. ""He's controlled the women. Now
he's even trying to control his destiny.''
Trawick's lawyer, William DelGrosso, said he doesn't have a clue to exactly
what his client seeks to accomplish with his stunts.
For instance, Trawick once offered in a letter to become a guinea pig for AIDS
research, which he knew medical ethics prohibited.
He has blasted the criminal justice system for not singling him out as a danger
to society.
Trawick said he should have been sent to a psychiatrist while in prison in the
1980s for bizarre crimes relating to women.
""I cut up women's underwear and wrote on the mirror in lipstick, "I'll be
back.' Wouldn't you think a guy like that had a problem?'' said Trawick of
convictions for burglary. ""Nobody ever bothered to ask why I did those
things.''
He has stated since his arrest in October 1992 that he wants the death penalty.
He says he only wants to warn the public Trawick, Page 2E Page 1E they're in
danger from killers like himself whom authorities, from records, should know
are dangerous.
Holmes was skeptical that Trawick had become a good citizen.
""It puts him up on a pedestal,'' Holmes said of the electric-chair request.
""It makes him the ultimate martyr. Society did this to me and my name is going
to live forever.''
Trawick may fit a category of serial killers with a mission since he claims to
have killed a similar type of woman, including three who he said had criminal
backgrounds, Holmes said.
Trawick, who claims to have killed five women, said he generally targeted
blond, Rubenesque victims whom he perceived as being flippant and sexily
dressed.
He said their looks reminded him of his sister and his ex-wife.
Only his last victim, 21-year-old Stephanie Gach, who was killed in October
1992, didn't fit that profile, he said.
""She just was available,'' he said. ""By that particular time, the disease had
advanced so far that the profile didn't matter.''
But Trawick dismisses any notion he hunted women.
He always killed impulsively, he said, and he didn't get a thrill or a sexual
charge in killing his victims.
"I never got up in the morning and said "I'm going to kill somebody,' '' he
said. "I allowed it to happen, but it was never my intent.''
He said he accosted his first murder victim, 17-year-old Betty Jo Richards,
without any scheme in North Birmingham in 1972.
He said he wrapped his arm around her, touched a knife to her stomach and led
her to an alley.
""She kept saying, "You really don't have to get a date like this,' '' Trawick
said.
"It was a surreal experience,'' he said of the killing. ""It basically just
happened.''
In the late 1970s, he said he traveled to Oregon where he killed another woman,
whom he said was a petty criminal.
The same year, he took a cruise ship toward Alaska and dumped overboard a
stowaway, who was a prostitute, he said.
Again, he never planned the murders, he said, claiming both women either said
or did something that angered him. He said he only knew he hated women, but not
why he killed some and could stop at frightening others.
But Holmes again cautioned against accepting Trawick's words.
"He knows why he did it, and he also knows what he gained,'' Holmes said. "He's
just not sharing it.''
**note**HE IS NOW
Trawick was vague on how the women had offended him, as he was with any
transgression by Ms. Gach or Frances Aileen Pruitt, 26, whose body was found
behind Hill Crest Hospital with 53 stab wounds in June 1992.
Ms. Gach, whom he tied up and was carrying in the back of his van, had simply
barked at him to "get it over with,'' which prompted him to stop the van and
spring on her, he said.
He said he stabbed both women after choking them unconscious.
Holmes said Trawick sounded like he preferred to blame his victims, and that
the stabbings could have been far more sexual in nature than the killer will
admit.
"Most serial killers kill for a sexual reason, albeit sex being different for
different people,'' Holmes said. ""He's killing these women because of what he
thinks they did to him. It's not my fault - it's your fault. Society is to
blame.''
Neil
>entertaining???
Yes.
I wonder how the victim's families would feel knowing
>that people such as yourself think that this killer is really cool, a
>"great guy", an interesting fellow who you'd like to befriend and make
>more famous?
Who cares about the families?
>Are you a journalist? Why do you approach men in prison, out of
>curiosity?
Because I am a horrible person.
>>and
>>after a couple of letters I knew that assumption was correct. I find the
>man
>>intelligent, likeable, interesting -- hell, he's just an all around great
>guy.
>
>So you admire him for what he has done?
I admire him generally and for doing what he wanted to do and not caring about
what would happen because of it.
>>I'm really sick of all of this "let's put this in the proper context before
>>discussing whatever crime" bullshit. Most of you, like me, read about crime
>>for the gory details.
>
>Do you understand why people question your admiration for this guy?
>Just wondering.
No, I don't question it.
- Neil
Neil
I always am.
mothra...@hotmail.com
> I think there are many things that make people interested in true crime. The
> reasons may be as varied as members of this newsgroups. Some read for the
> legal aspects, the sense of "justice" when the perp comes to trial and is found
> guilty. The "good guys" win in the end. Some books don't give away the perp
> until he is caught and those appeal to the mystery lovers. Still others are
> interested in the books for more prurient reasons - the identification with a
> sexual sadist or masochist. The books satisfy certain readers the way horror
> movies do. No matter how your life has gone to shit, at least the boogeyman
> ain't at the door. Or if you are the boogeyman, at least you aren't locked up.
>
> I've been a fan of true crime and especially books on serial killers for 23
> years. I read Helter Skelter when I was 14 and have been hooked ever since. If
> the words posted by Neil are truly from Jack Trawick, I hope he posts more.
> There is the chance here to have some real insight into the mind of a killer,
> even if it's just him fucking with us. I'd much rather read about him than
> baked babies, politics or spouse killing.
>
Me too.
Martha
Hester Mofet
<<
> I read Helter Skelter when I was 14 and have been hooked ever since. If
>the words posted by Neil are truly from Jack Trawick, I hope he posts more.
I will and they are. Write to the man and ask him yourself.
Mr. Jack Trawick Z-561 (King of the South)
Holman Station, Apt. 6U7
P.O. Box 3700
Atmore, AL 30503
>>
Oh no. I don't have any desire to correspond with someone who scares the shit
out of me. I know for every guy like him who's locked up, there are several who
aren't. I think it would be interesting to know if Jack ever met someone like
himself on the outside -- another serial killer or something like that. I
always thought it would be interesting if a couple of them ran into each other
and just "knew."
Yeah, I've always had these creepy thoughts.
Hester Mofet
RJRSJ1
Hester Mofet
What on earth does that have to do with anything?If he does, you think him a
fool and if he doesn't, you shake your head and say that of course he doesn't
understand?
Hester Mofet
JC
;)
I'd like to know more about you and your interest in tc and JT and so forth.
Please? Many of us here cannot bring ourselves to indulge our tc interests
to the extent of writing to and becoming friends with death row killers.
Some do, and have, but not quite like this. JT's letters are one thing. Your
life experience is another. You are an interesting person. Also, I'd like to
hear details of your visits to JT. (Did I understand that right, you visited
him?)
JC
JC
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
Thx for the articles. I'm skeptical of "diagnosed in 1970 as a paranoid
schizophrenic with homicidal impulses". Pretty dated anyway. He sure has
started telling it differently now hasn't he.
JC
RJRSJ1
Sunny
>>What exactly has he done "for" serial murder, exactly? Made it more
>>entertaining???
>
>Yes.
>
>I wonder how the victim's families would feel knowing
>>that people such as yourself think that this killer is really cool, a
>>"great guy", an interesting fellow who you'd like to befriend and make
>>more famous?
>
>Who cares about the families?
(speechless)
>>Are you a journalist? Why do you approach men in prison, out of
>>curiosity?
>
>Because I am a horrible person.
Clearly, you are vicariously enjoying the activities of this
rapist/killer. I don;t know if that makes you a horrible person, but
in my opinion, it does make you a sick person.
>>>and
>>>after a couple of letters I knew that assumption was correct. I find the
>>man
>>>intelligent, likeable, interesting -- hell, he's just an all around great
>>guy.
>>
>>So you admire him for what he has done?
>
>I admire him generally and for doing what he wanted to do and not caring about
>what would happen because of it.
>
>>>I'm really sick of all of this "let's put this in the proper context before
>>>discussing whatever crime" bullshit. Most of you, like me, read about crime
>>>for the gory details.
>>
>>Do you understand why people question your admiration for this guy?
>>Just wondering.
>
>No, I don't question it.
>
>- Neil
Have you, or have you ever considered, raping and killing women? Is
that why you are so fascinated with Jack Trawick?
Neil
No.
Neil
Gee wiz, mom, it takes a genius to realize that parents are particularily
touchy when it comes to the horrible things that are out there in the world
that their children might encounter.
Quick story: I was at "The Olive Garden" with my aunt and her 4-year-old
daughter about a month ago. They had recently been in a small car accident and
were upset that the witnesses drove away. My aunt's comment was, "What if
little Cindy had been hurt?" As if these people are responsible for making
sure her daughter gets the proper medical attention. Besides, my aunt is a
doctor and she carries a cell phone, but still, she had to complain. Lord,
what's the world coming to?
So no, I don't have that ignorant, overprotective, worthless, pathetic attitude
that parents get after their first born. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that
I never want children.
However, I do have a 13-year-old sister, a very attractive 24-year-old
girlfriend, and mom is always mom. Any one of them could easily become serial
killer dinner if the circumstances were right, but I don't worry about it. I
stick with my girlfriend whenever possible if she's going to a department store
or a grocery store - serial killer shopping malls. I urge my mother to do the
same and to look out for my sister in the same way and blah blah blah.
None of that changes my relationship with The Great Mr. Jack Trawick.
- Neil
Neil
Sure, I've been interested in true crime for as long as I can remember - I'm 23
now. Please ask more specific questions and I'll try to answer all of them.
>Your
>life experience is another. You are an >interesting person.
I sure am. Like I said - more specific questions. I spend my free time
fucking my girlfriend, who I've lived with for 4 years, am very close to, never
cheated on and et cetera. I drink heavily, do a lot of drugs, and I have a
fondness for guns. I've been drinking less since my last forced
hospitalization (10 days) but I'm starting this morning (a day off for me) with
4 beers and a little of the marijahoochie, as Mr. T would call it.
>Also, I'd like to
>hear details of your visits to JT. (Did I >understand that right, you visited
>him?)
No, not yet. Jack and I have only been writing each other for about six
months. I live in NJ and his little apartment is down in Alabama. I plan on a
visit in the next year or so and we're working on getting to phone calls, which
is a process that takes him a while. He used to get his kicks from
impersonating a State Trooper, calling women he found attractive, and telling
them their husbands died in car accidents.
- Neil
IBegg2Differ
>daughter about a month ago. They had recently been in a small car accident
>and
>were upset that the witnesses drove away. My aunt's comment was, "What if
>little Cindy had been hurt?" As if these people are responsible for making
>sure her daughter gets the proper medical attention.
They aren't responsible, that's true. No one has to be good to another person.
It's a free country. People are allowed to be assholes. That means, though,
that other people are equally free to view them as assholes and point it out.
So, the witnesses were within their rights, but your aunt was also within her
rights to bitch about it. You, in turn, are within your rights to bitch about
her bitching about it. That may put you, however, in the "asshole" category in
the eyes of other people, which is something you'll have to live with. If you
have no problem living with that, then I guess everyone is about on the same
page.
>However, I do have a 13-year-old sister, a very attractive 24-year-old
>girlfriend, and mom is always mom. Any one of them could easily become
>serial
>killer dinner if the circumstances were right, but I don't worry about it. I
>stick with my girlfriend whenever possible if she's going to a department
>store
>or a grocery store - serial killer shopping malls. I urge my mother to do
>the
>same and to look out for my sister in the same way and blah blah blah.
>
>None of that changes my relationship with The Great Mr. Jack Trawick.
>
Well, you have said that you admire him for doing whatever he wants and not
caring about the consequences. I wonder: if someone *did* manage to make
"dinner" out of your mom, sister, or aunt, would you equally admire that
person?
This is not a flame. It's a serious question. What I want to know is whether
you truly admire that particular "quality" of disregard for others no matter
where it's applied, or if you're simply reserving the right to "care" only for
the people close to you and not for humanity in general.
Sunny
wrote:
>This is not a flame. It's a serious question. What I want to know is whether
>you truly admire that particular "quality" of disregard for others no matter
>where it's applied, or if you're simply reserving the right to "care" only for
>the people close to you and not for humanity in general.
What makes you think he cares for people who are close to him?
RJRSJ1
>
>Gee wiz, mom, it takes a genius to realize that parents are particularily
>touchy when it comes to the horrible things that are out there in the world
>that their children might encounter.
Sorry your parents weren't concerned for you then. You poor thing.
>
>Quick story: I was at "The Olive Garden" with my aunt and her 4-year-old
>daughter about a month ago. They had recently been in a small car accident
>and
>were upset that the witnesses drove away. My aunt's comment was, "What if
>little Cindy had been hurt?" As if these people are responsible for making
>sure her daughter gets the proper medical attention. Besides, my aunt is a
>doctor and she carries a cell phone, but still, she had to complain. Lord,
>what's the world coming to?
Ahhh...I know people like you. It's all about the shock value and how much you
can turn people off with your "I could give a fuck" attitude when in reality
you're really a young guy who didn't get enough love or attention growing up.
I'm sorry for you but you can turn that around and make something positive out
of it, you know.
>
>So no, I don't have that ignorant, overprotective, worthless, pathetic
>attitude
>that parents get after their first born. I'm sure you'll be happy to know
>that
>I never want children.
Well, I am helping raise, for the past four years, two step children whose
mother is an alcoholic and drug addict - their father has full custody of them.
We also have one kid together. I became an instant mom right off the bat so I
earned the right to be overprotective at least. As far as ignorant, worthless
and pathetic - nah. That faded away and was replaced with experience and a hell
of a lot of maturity. You'll figure it all out one day, Neil. Until then,
whatever gets your rocks off. It's a good thing you don't want kids, because if
you had them - they'd figure it out pretty quick.
>
>However, I do have a 13-year-old sister, a very attractive 24-year-old
>girlfriend, and mom is always mom. Any one of them could easily become
>serial
>killer dinner if the circumstances were right, but I don't worry about it. I
>stick with my girlfriend whenever possible if she's going to a department
>store
>or a grocery store - serial killer shopping malls. I urge my mother to do
>the
>same and to look out for my sister in the same way and blah blah blah.
Good for you. I'm assuming your girlfriend is sharing the same agreement about
not wanting kids too? It sounds like you're better off without them.
>
>None of that changes my relationship with The Great Mr. Jack Trawick.
>- Neil
Who said it should?
>
>
>
>
>
Matt Miller
that the following message was delivered to alt.true-crime:
I'm actually not a big reader of TC books. I hang out around here
mostly because I'm a news junkie and crime is an aspect of the news. I
do have a particular interest in criminal investigations though, so I'm
far more likely to be interested in crime related news than I am
entertainment news.
As for what sells I imagine that if blood sold these books we'd
have more men posting here.
--
Matt Miller
Lucy A. Afar
Thank you for a great, thought-provoking post. I basically share your
views about the Jack Trawick letters (as posted by Neil). This
paragraph from your post to Neil, in particular:
> If I'm completely misunderstanding you, I apologize. I'm certainly
> not trying to flame you or insult you--I think English-speaking
> culture, in general, is fascinated by serial killers, and the
> difference between "trying to understand" and "fandom" is often in the
> eye of the beholder. Speaking only for myself, what turned me off
> about the posts of yours I did read was what I saw as a lack of
> context and what felt to me--subjectively, I know--like a
> "collector's" trotting out his prize exhibits.
>
> It may also be a particular ickiness I have about what I've perceived
> as the particular mystique around Trawick, which I've never understood
> (or cared to). I have a very strong sense of there being some people
> in the world who think of this (to me, as I understand it, as an
> amateur researcher and very occasional crime writer) quite ordinary
> sexually violent/rage-filled/misogynistic/brain damaged killer of four
> women as some kind of Kerouac figure (or maybe William S. Burroughs is
> a better example?)
I think that you're making a very good point in what the image of the
killer in American culture is concerned. The role of media in the
perception of the serial killers is treated in a very interesting
article:
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~surette/pred.html
of which you can find a few excerpts, below.
Thanks again for your excellent post.
Lucy
From "Predator Criminals as Media Icons", by Ray Surette
"The public's devotion to the predator icon and an understanding of
the media's role in its proselytization can be better understood from
looking at the United States' cultural tradition. Noted as a dominate
cultural trait first by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s, a key
feature in American culture is the central
role that individualism plays.27 Individualism in America demonstrates
itself in two ways. First, at the personal level it is related to an
American focus on close individual relationships and an avoidance of
contact with large groups and organizations. Second, regarding the
conduct of other individuals, they are nearly universally held
directly responsible for any problems and difficulties they may
experience and for fashioning any solutions, collective responses are
seldom conceived or pursued. This firm belief in individual
responsibility is reflected in our vigilante tradition (Scheingold,
1984:60-61) and is apparent in our popular crime and justice
literature as the rugged individualist as
problem solver (Gans, 1988:54). In practice, Americans traditionally
focus on small personal "micro" communities and avoid contact with the
"macro" community and large organizations. In private life,
individualism forwards the pursuit of life-style enclaves,
artificially created private havens of safety and privacy. These
enclaves share external features of life (built around a golf course
or a marina for example) but are less than a community. They have no
history, no social interdependence, and no external political
involvement (Bellah et al, 1985:73).
In practical effect, individualism leads to micro-social solutions to
crime - security devices, guns, private protection agencies. And when
enclaves feel threatened by crime, the ones that can afford it become
garrison communities. The culture of individualism also affects our
perceptions of the causes of crime, forwarding personal and
interpersonal moral explanations. Predating the mass media, the
traditional causes of crime have been seen as individual flaws or
flawed relationships between individuals; social or organizational
relationships have not been traditionally given much weight (Gans,
1988:60). And although the media does not argue any clear set of
policies, it reflects the cultural focus on the microcommunity of
family, close friends, and individuals in its content regarding social
lems and their solutions. In our media and in our culture, social
problems are generated and solved at the individual level. Because of
this, Americans lack the cultural resources to deal with relationships
between culturally, socially or economically different citizens
(Bellah et al, 1985:206-208)Large organizations, government, and
business corporations are shown as distant, distrustful and frequently
dishonest, things to be avoided wherever possible (Bellah et al,
1985:279).
For criminal justice, another effect of individualism is its
orientation toward deviants as inherently different. The culture
desires to isolate troublemakers and to perceive them as distinct
(Schur, 1969:1415). In the crime and justice arena, the myopic focus
on predator crimes is thus heightened by the perception of criminal as
a separate breed, encouraging the perception of social and economic
factors as irrelevant (Scheingold, 1984:66). The mainstream American
response to crime is drawn from a common sense perspective which
focuses on morally deficient criminals and on preventing them from
committing crime. However, this focus tends to ignore the social
generation of morally deficient criminals. In sum, when crime is
solely blamed on individual failure, even non punitive anti-crime
policies will emphasize intensive individual rehabilitative or
educational efforts rather than policies that deal with social
contributors (Gans, 1984:96). This emphasis on individual explanations
and solutions in turn hurts people at the bottom of the social
hierarchy who need a package of policies that incorporate both social
solutions as well as individual responsibility."
[...]
"The media is encouraged by our cultural history to project the
predator icon, risks little social criticism by emphasizing it, and is
rewarded by its continuing popularity. The icon is a safe and expected
image for crime and justice. That both the news and entertainment
components of the media project the predator icon ad nauseam has
however led to some concern over its effects on society and criminal
justice policy. Audience fear, mystification of the criminal justice
system, artificially generated support for punitive criminal justice
policies, and increased tolerance for illegal law enforcement
practices are all concerns."
[...]
"Besides influencing resources, the icon also affects police
practices. This is not surprising in that the early steps of the
justice process, law enforcement, investigation, and arrests, are
emphasized in entertainment programming to the near exclusion of other
subsequent steps (Carlson, 1985:117; Garofalo, 1981). Law enforcement
not only dominates, but dominates as a glamorous action filled
detective process which often legitimizes the use of violence (Culver
and Knight, 1979). The media crime fighters are the dramatic
embodiment of the dominant American ideology of individualism and
action and the media's criminal justice system usually ends with the
arrest or killing of the offender (Bortner,1984:5; Dominick,
1978:116). Info-tainment news style shows cement the image that police
work is dangerous and pitted against an established class
of predator criminals, images that match the self promotions of law
enforcement "wars" against crime and on drugs (Kappeler et al,
1992:124). Thus, a parallel icon of a dangerous, exciting world of
crime fighting ties into the image of the predator criminal icon, the
two reinforcing each other. Indeed, the police image of stressful,
dangerous, crime fighting work needs the predator criminal image to
maintain its credibility (Kappeler, et al, 1992:142).
There is also evidence that the media predator image influences police
recruits in their expectations of police work. In a pre and post
academy training survey of police recruits by Surette (1993) it was
noted that police recruit expectations of police work shows a
significant relationship with their media usage, a relationship that
persists following police academy training. Even after the effects of
other independent variables are taken into account, the greater a
recruit's preference for crime shows and belief in the reality of
programming, the more likely recruits expect that police work will
involve greater amounts of crime fighting, that officers will more
often fire their weapons, and that more arrests will be violent
encounters. When the media's crime and justice message is subscribed
to by police recruits, the predator icon results not surprisingly in
predator-hunting, predator focused police.
The predator criminal icon has also helped to make the United states
one of the most punitive countries on the planet while ironically,
simultaneously forwarding the myth that we are overly lenient.33 Our
reality is that we are both more violent than most Western societies
and more punitive. We incarcerate at nearly four times the rate of our
nearest competitor, the United Kingdom (388 versus 97.4 per 100,000 in
1988) and we have been increasing our death row, prison, parole and
probation populations annually and significantly since the early
1980s. However, punitiveness has not brought security. For example, in
1990 56 percent of Americans fear violent victimization,34 44 percent
are afraid in their neighborhoods to walk alone at night,35 38 percent
are more uneasy on the streets than they were the previous year,36 and
30 percent are
more than a little fearful of being attacked, or robbed at home and 48
percent while travelling.37 Fear and concern outrun risk, while
increasing criminal justice expenditures do not seriously reduce the
crime problem (Tauchen et a[, 1992).
A single, unified and very popular conception of crime in America
emerges from the predator criminal icon. Predator crime is a metaphor
for a world gone berserk, for life out of control. Forging a
partnership between the police, the media, and the audience, these
images of dangerous fugitives in a violent and uncertain world
encourage broad social controls and justify increased social
surveillance.38 In an ultimate irony, myth creates reality. The
pursuit of the icon in the real world fosters aggressive law
enforcement policies and ignores social conditions that make the icon
both more credible and threatening. Alternatives challenging the icon
tend to be expelled from normal reality as dangerous, bizarre, and
comical (Knight and Dean, 1982:146).
In conclusion, the most basic effects of the predator icon are to
generate fear, degrade social networks, increase reliance on the
media, and foster social isolation and polarization. We abandon
society and its real problems to the media (Kappeler et al, 1992:248).
When all external causes of crime are rejected, individual punishment
emerges as the only logical social response to crime while criminology
is demoted from a quest for understanding to the pragmatic task of
crime detection. Offenders are stereotyped as monolithic,
pathological, and violent; crime is analyzed from a simplistic
prey-predator paradigm; and crime policy is fixated in a punitive
defensive posture (Kappeler et al, 1992:249-250). The continued
exposure to media violence, especially among those in which violence
is likely to be perceived as a way of life, offers little hope that
the media is orientating our society in a less violent direction.
Instead it suggests that the media plays an important role in
reinforcing the norm of justified violence (Israel et al, 1972:100)."
[...]
"The empirical reality of crime will be molded and offered as
supportive evidence for the mythical icon of crime. A closed,
tautological system will have been created that despite the criminal
justice system being presented and perceived as waging a losing war,
its enhancement, at least as a law enforcement and punitive system,
will be offered as the best hope against a sea of violent crimes and
predator criminals. The continuing disparity between the media
constructed reality of crime and justice and the non-media reality of
crime and justice results in the public receiving an unnecessarily
distorted image that supports only one anti-crime policy approach, an
expanded and
enhanced punitive criminal justice system. An approach lacking
evidence of success."
IBegg2Differ
>whether
>>you truly admire that particular "quality" of disregard for others no matter
>>where it's applied, or if you're simply reserving the right to "care" only
>for
>>the people close to you and not for humanity in general.
>
>What makes you think he cares for people who are close to him?
>
He indicated a certain degree of protectiveness about his girlfriend, aunt, and
sister. I am wondering if he really *does* care about them, actually, but I
think that's, in a way, part of my question.
Sunny
>> Or - you maybe right.
>
>I always am.
Have you ever been diagnosed with a personality disorder?
Neil
>that why you are so fascinated with Jack Trawick?
No, I have never considered raping a woman. I've considered, and still do
consider, murdering many people - women and men, but I'm more of a gunshot to
the head type of guy and I'd kill more men than women if the circumstances were
right.
- Neil
Neil
>caring about the consequences. I wonder: if someone *did* manage to make
>"dinner" out of your mom, sister, or aunt, would you equally admire that
>person?
No, as I've said to even Trawick several times - "If that had been someone
close to me you wouldn't be on death row right now, you'd already be dead. You
wouldn't even get to trial. I'd kill you and whoever else I had to to get to
you in whatever way possible - I would find a way. However, you didn't hurt
anyone close to me and I don't care about your victims. If anyone in their
family had any integrity they'd take the same road I would, but they don't -
they're as worthless as your victims."
>This is not a flame. It's a serious question. What I want to know is whether
>you truly admire that particular "quality" of disregard for others no matter
>where it's applied, or if you're simply reserving the right to "care" only
>for
>the people close to you and not for humanity in general.
Yeah, I only care about those close to me. That about sums it up. The rest of
you can all fucking suffer and die for all I care.
- Neil
Neil
>and
>sister. I am wondering if he really *does* care about them, actually, but I
>think that's, in a way, part of my question.
I care about my girlfriend, sister, and mother deeply. My aunt is another
story. I like her, but I wouldn't kill for her.
- Neil
Neil
>out
>of it, you know.
I sure hope so. I strive for it.
Neil
>have more men posting here.
The only thing that blood sells more than books and movies are tampons.
- Neil
Matt Miller
>>As for what sells I imagine that if blood sold these books we'd
Oooooh how profound. Yes woman menstrate and are therefore facinated
with violence. Take another toke and enlighten us some more.
--
Matt Miller
Neil
>>>have more men posting here.
>>
>> The only thing that blood sells more than books and movies are tampons.
>>
>> - Neil
>
> Oooooh how profound. Yes woman menstrate and are therefore facinated
>with violence. Take another toke and enlighten us some more.
Matt, I'm wittier than you - face it.
Gayle
> If you can find it, read The Gates of Janus by Ian Brady.
I found it on Amazon. Thanks for the recommendation.
Gayle
JC
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
Why were you hospitalized, Neil? Substance abuse? How do you spend your
time? Do you have a job or business? Trust fund? I know none of this is my
business, but you said it was okay to ask. I am very curious about you is
all.
You have mentioned your mom. What about your dad? What does he do? How do
you get along with him? With hospitalizations and so forth, they must be on
your case a certain amount? Or not? I'd imagine they'd worry quite alot
about you. Do your parents like your gf? Does she like your mom? your dad?
You said JT was polite to your gf, or I thought you did, and that made me
think you'd visited him in person.
I'm going to be away from my 'puter for a few days. Will post more questions
to you when I return. I still have many.
Thanks in advance.
JC
JC
JC
attitude
> that parents get after their first born. I'm sure you'll be happy to know
that
> I never want children.
>
> However, I do have a 13-year-old sister, a very attractive 24-year-old
> girlfriend, and mom is always mom. Any one of them could easily become
serial
> killer dinner if the circumstances were right, but I don't worry about it.
I
> stick with my girlfriend whenever possible if she's going to a department
store
> or a grocery store - serial killer shopping malls. I urge my mother to do
the
> same and to look out for my sister in the same way and blah blah blah.
>
> None of that changes my relationship with The Great Mr. Jack Trawick.
>
> - Neil
Why do you never mention your father?
JC
Alan Hope
>>Apparently you don't have any either.
>Gee wiz, mom, it takes a genius to realize that parents are particularily
>touchy when it comes to the horrible things that are out there in the world
>that their children might encounter.
>Quick story: I was at "The Olive Garden" with my aunt and her 4-year-old
>daughter about a month ago. They had recently been in a small car accident and
>were upset that the witnesses drove away. My aunt's comment was, "What if
>little Cindy had been hurt?" As if these people are responsible for making
>sure her daughter gets the proper medical attention.
They are, of course. Failing to take reasonable steps to help a person
in danger is evidence of the most culpable inhumanity.
>Besides, my aunt is a
>doctor and she carries a cell phone, but still, she had to complain. Lord,
>what's the world coming to?
Yeah. Fancy expecting anyone to lift a finger to help their fellow
man.
>So no, I don't have that ignorant, overprotective, worthless, pathetic attitude
>that parents get after their first born. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that
>I never want children.
I'm delighted, and wish you every success in your aim.
>However, I do have a 13-year-old sister, a very attractive 24-year-old
>girlfriend, and mom is always mom. Any one of them could easily become serial
>killer dinner if the circumstances were right, but I don't worry about it. I
>stick with my girlfriend whenever possible if she's going to a department store
>or a grocery store - serial killer shopping malls. I urge my mother to do the
>same and to look out for my sister in the same way and blah blah blah.
This is the girlfriend you spend your spare time "fucking"? She went
for your romantic side, I can tell.
I'm sure they'd feel really safe knowing the serial killer wannabe was
carrying the packages for them. Do they know about your ass-kissing
activities?
>None of that changes my relationship with The Great Mr. Jack Trawick.
Perhaps the prison authorities could be prevailed upon to leave you
two alone together for an hour one of these days. I'd sign that
petition.
--
AH
Alan Hope
You should start stocking up on Marlboros now, Neil. They're going to
come in so handy to you one of these days.
--
AH
Neil
It's funny - Jack recently asked me the same thing. I have a good relationship
with my dad. I guess I might be a bit more protective of him than I'd like to
admit. I tend not to talk about people who I care about. I mention my mother,
sister, girlfriend, and et cetera because people will naturally wonder about my
relationships with women.
Neil
>activities?
If I were to get into my ass kissing activities I'd have to talk more about my
romantic relationship with my whore, Crystal.
- Neil
Neil
>come in so handy to you one of these days.
I'll do fine in prison all on my own. Hey, just think, I'll have time to write
lots of letters.
- Neil
RJRSJ1
I can tell. Keep it up.
RJRSJ1
Boy, if I ever saw a walking contradiction...
RJRSJ1
Honey, that's just his drag name...
Neil
>>my
>>romantic relationship with my whore, Crystal.
>>
>>- Neil
>
>Honey, that's just his drag name...
And what do you look like? I'd be glad to describe him if you're interested.
And yeah, you caught me, his real name is Chris.
RJRSJ1
>>>my
>>>romantic relationship with my whore, Crystal.
>>>
>>>- Neil
>>
>>Honey, that's just his drag name...
>
>And what do you look like? I'd be glad to describe him if you're interested.
I can't do that, then I would want him all to myself.
>And yeah, you caught me, his real name is Chris.
Umm...no it's not.
IBegg2Differ
>whether
>>you truly admire that particular "quality" of disregard for others no matter
>>where it's applied, or if you're simply reserving the right to "care" only
>>for
>>the people close to you and not for humanity in general.
>
>Yeah, I only care about those close to me. That about sums it up. The rest
>of
>you can all fucking suffer and die for all I care.
>
>- Neil
>
It would seem to me, then, that you are potentially a danger to the people
close to you. After all, the only reason you care about them at all is
*because* they are close to you. That would mean, then, that if they to ever
lose that status of closeness (i.e. piss you off), they would then fall into
the category of people who "can all fucking suffer and die for all [you] care".
You've acknowleged having violent tendencies, being often under the influence
of substances, and participating in generally irresponsible behavior, as well
as an admiration for disregarding consequences. Then you've also acknowleged
in this post that you'd only care for them as long as they remain close to you.
So, you're a potential danger to these women and should not be trusted by
them. The truth about these women, then must be one of the following:
1. They know you and your tendencies well, but do not have the intelligence to
distance themselves from you.
2. They are naive enough to fail to see you for what you really are.
3. Your online persona is not real, but rather a ploy for attention by making
statements for their shock value, in which case the women in your life are
probably not in real danger, but are dealing with a very immature person (you).
4. Your online persona is not real, but rather a fantasy where you get to play
a part you can't really bring yourself to live up to in real life, in which
case the women in your life may be in danger from you at some point, but may
have no reason to know that now.
In your own assessment of your life and the women in it, which of these
statements is closest to the truth?
mothra...@hotmail.com
Nothing to say, just want to note that I fell off my chair laughing.
Carry on.
Martha
Neil
>statements is closest to the truth?
>
None of them...
IBegg2Differ
>>statements is closest to the truth?
>>
>
>None of them...
Actually, having caught up on reading your other posts, I am no longer
interested in an answer. I believe you to be less than credible, and I believe
your online persona here is a false one. I also believe that your letters from
Jack Trawick may not be real. Do not ask me to write to Jack myself, as I am
not interested in Jack in the least; I was only slightly interested in the mind
set of someone who would wish to glamorize him, and I have lost interest even
in that.
Every9man
>"TdN" <triann...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:314a4ba6.02072...@posting.google.com...
>> mothra...@hotmail.com wrote in message
>news:<3D3CA6...@erols.com>...
>> > Mr. Grouch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Why are you posting this shit from Trawick? The sick bastard is
>put
>away
>> > > forever and who cares about his memoirs?
>> >
>> > I do. Thanks again, Neil.
>>
>> I never read the Trawick postings myself, but I appreciate the fact
>> that O'Connor now flags them so I can avoid them. I found them very
>> disturbing when they were just showing up untagged; O'Connor is to be
>> commended for responding to people's wishes to have them flagged.
>>
>> I just read two very interesting books about the psychology of serial
>> killers--"Why They Kill," by Richard Rhodes (a presentation of the
>> work of criminologist Lonnie Athens) and "Base Instincts: What Makes
>> Killers Kill" by neurologist Jonathan Pincus. I recommend them both
>> to at-c folks.
>>
>> T.
>
>I believe the former is one I read at the recommendation of Jack Olsen.
>A
>fine and unique type of read. Criminologist Lonnie Athens is a very
>interesting man.
>
>JC
>
It was on Jack's recommendation that I bought Rhodes book also.
Methinks Lonnie Athens' works wouldnt be well received on this newsgroup :{
Barbara
Every9man
>From: neiloc...@aol.com44698 (Neil )
What drugs are you into if you dont mind me asking?
Barbara
Every9man
>TdN wrote:
>>
>> mothra...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<3D3CA6...@erols.com>...
>> > Mr. Grouch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Why are you posting this shit from Trawick? The sick bastard is
>put away
>> > > forever and who cares about his memoirs?
>> >
>> > I do. Thanks again, Neil.
>>
>> I never read the Trawick postings myself, but I appreciate the fact
>> that O'Connor now flags them so I can avoid them. I found them very
>> disturbing when they were just showing up untagged; O'Connor is to be
>> commended for responding to people's wishes to have them flagged.
>>
>> I just read two very interesting books about the psychology of serial
>> killers--"Why They Kill," by Richard Rhodes (a presentation of the
>> work of criminologist Lonnie Athens) and "Base Instincts: What Makes
>> Killers Kill" by neurologist Jonathan Pincus. I recommend them both
>> to at-c folks.
>>
>
>Thanks for the recommendations. I'll look for them.
>
>And thanks for being an adult about the Trawick postings. Would that
>the rest of the world were so sensible.
>
>Martha
>
What I 'm finding fascinating are the reactions to Neil and Jack in that they
are so different than the reactions to Joe.
I know how different they are and I still suspect that Neil is a troll but
there is a hell of a lot more tolerance for each of our interest in both of
them than I have ever seen here.
Hopefully it will last.
Barbara
Hester Mofet
<< It was on Jack's recommendation that I bought Rhodes book also.
Methinks Lonnie Athens' works wouldnt be well received on this newsgroup :{
I thought Why They Kill was a great book and an interesting study.
Hester Mofet