Progression of Addiction

[guessting]

Case number 33Modesto/Stockton Rapes

Forgive me if you have been through this before I know it has been discussed. I really feel it is important.[/color]


A couple; used shoelace bindings, left as soon as he raped victim; dishes trick (stole $1500.) This fact makes me very curious as EAR never really took much of value. I never seemed like he needed the money. Could a battle with addiction be happening here? He needed the money? Out of all the crimes he did, to only take a single large amount of cash, when there were many other opportunities to take things of value, jewelry, cash, items that could quickly be turned over for cash. I believe this is key somehow and should be explored. The hasty retreat, could also be indicative of this.

It would be remarkable if many individuals escaped this era without some sort of lets say drug experience, and or alcoholism. I really do not separate the two but for these purposes I will. I believe alcohol is a drug, only it is a legal one.

In the early seventies cocaine was being touted as a non addictive drug. No worries, great sex, no complications, social use, etc. My goodness would that be a huge misunderstanding and devastating disservice to this generation. It was used by many professionals and upper class individuals. It was the white rich man's cocaine. If people only knew who was on that drug in the early seventies it would shock you. It was considered an enhancer to sexual experiences as was amphetamines. Maybe he had gotten in deep. His absences could of coincided with treatment etc.

Back in the day Sacramento was very limited with treatment options and those with money, insurance went to places like Hazelton in Minnesota, Arizona and out of state. Could he have gone through treatment. Decided to stay in that state and then returned to continue crime spree. One positive thing about these facilities is they do keep records, although it takes damn near an act of God to subpoena one. I do believe our offender has a history of drug abuse. G

[portofleith]

Guestting,
You are right. Cocaine was pervasive then- even present at parties at the homes of physicians and lawyers. I always have felt that Ears Ons was in too much control to have used illegal drugs, but we know, at the very least, he drank beer. The weird chanting he did at the HH attack could also suggest some drug induced behavior. How long are the treatment programs at places like Hazelden? Do they phase outpatients into the local community or back to their originating community?

[guessting]

Port,

These facilities in the late seventies and early eighties were 30 day programs that once completed the client would return to their community of origin. They ran about $10,000. per bed per 30 days and if you reqired a medical detox could cost much more.Alcoholism has been recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association and other medical organizations since the early 1950's. It is a chronic, progressive and, if untreated, fatal disease.
It has been described as mental obsession coupled with a physical compulsion -- to drink. It is also described as being addicted to something you are also allergic too. It is the only disease that denies it exists, and resists treatment. And the only one that must be self diagnosed. Very fitting description if you remove the alcohol or drugs and use mental obsession to rape, physical compulsion to rape and kill.

It should be noted alot of these individuals who had the opportunity to go to these nice facilities were often times forced by parents, nudge from a judge etc. and many, more often than not ever maintained their sobriety for too long. Many repeated tx as often as 20 times and still never got it. I include drugs in the term sobriety, not just alcohol.

In my opinion, the drugs of the seventies and eighties took longer periods of time to produce the physical, mental and spiritual deficits and noticeable characteristics of addiciton than the drugs of today. Some however went quickly. For that reason I believe there would have been many who may not of noticed the addiction as quickly. I have known many professionals who have been users and you are shocked when you find out. That is referencing back then and today.

[wintergirl]

Personally I think he was addicted to stalking and rape, ect. I think he saw that much money and thought it was easy pickings. If he needed money for drugs or whatever I think there would have been more and more money taken in future crimes, which wasn't the case.

[jjmcgr]

Port,
I think the comment "never took much of value" should be modified to "never took anything of value that could be traced back to him." To me the main criminal in these cases had the number 1 priority of not getting caught. $1500 in cash could not be traced back to him. I doubt he looked for the money. Maybe it was lying on a table or the victims offered it to him as a bribe. He probably took smaller amounts at other crime scenes. If he took jewlery or property, he'd have had to fence or pawn them and this would tie him to the crimes with at least one other person and, possibly, to LE eventually. He couldn't risk it.

[negnerd]

Richard Ramirez (The Night Stalker) did drugs on a regular basis and for a long time it did not interfere with his ability to commit his crimes. He smoked marijuana and was also doing "speed" and shooting cocaine so as to enhance the thrill he got from doing the crimes. Ramirez got careless, stole a car and this eventually led to his downfall.
The EAR-ONS could very well have been doing drugs too. Cocaine gives you a sense of immortality and this, coupled with extensive planning, could explain these brazen attacks.

[itzmajick]

Nov 5, 2008 15:27:57 GMT -5 jjmcgr said:

Port,
I think the comment "never took much of value" should be modified to "never took anything of value that could be traced back to him." To me the main criminal in these cases had the number 1 priority of not getting caught. $1500 in cash could not be traced back to him. I doubt he looked for the money. Maybe it was lying on a table or the victims offered it to him as a bribe. He probably took smaller amounts at other crime scenes. If he took jewlery or property, he'd have had to fence or pawn them and this would tie him to the crimes with at least one other person and, possibly, to LE eventually. He couldn't risk it.

I don't agree with this. I think he probably went ransacking through the house (resorting to infamous Visalia Ransacker behavior) and probably stumbled upon the money and took it. Not a motive, nor was it needed but why not?