Eurydice Dixon

[think positive]

[Mugwump]

^ Yep, those things have a large impact, TP. The question is why these behaviours are now commonplace. What changed to make them so, and why?

There was a solid, sensible article in the Age today by Madonna King on this case and the reaction to it, too. I did have to grimace at the headline, however : �where to direct your hurt and hate� .... it�s odd that so many people who did not know her should consider themselves �hurt� by the tragic and senseless death of this young woman, or that they feel they have a right to �hate�. Her family and friends have a right to feel hurt, pain etc. For those of us who did not know her, one would think that sorrow, horror and sadness are appropriate. But we alll seem so desperate to make ourselves and our feelings the center of the story, however remote from it we actually are. I find that curious.

[stui magpie]

^

Are they really more common place or is there just less tolerance and higher expectations?

Domestic violence isn't necessarily a bigger thing now, it may even be less, but it's not hushed up and hidden any more. It used to be a dirty secret, common knowledge but not spoken about that if Al left the pub in a bad mood this arvo, the missus was gonna cop flogging when he got home.

I saw an article on line that I can't find now, the day after Eurydice was murdered, about random murder of women in the same are in the 1940's. A US Service man was caught, courtmartialed and hung by the US military, the last execution in Australia not by an Australian judiciary. These kind of vicious attacks on strangers happened, but the reporting of them was far far less.

Edit, found the article.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/the-brownout-strangler-killed-women-across-melbourne/news-story/8ce6d33c7e48301ee1c339993e1f1fcb

The Brownout Strangler was his moniker, Edward Leonski his name.

http://ergo.slv.vic.gov.au/explore-history/rebels-outlaws/city-criminals/brown-out-strangler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Leonski

In the 40's and 50's, young single women didn't walk the streets at night alone. Married women were home with their husbands.

The expectations of womens rights have changed dramatically, for the better, and the vast majority of males have come along for the ride. Some more reluctantly and slowly than others, but they've come.

The people who commit rape and murder have always been there, we're just no better at preventing them

[Mugwump]

^ I knew of the Leonski case, and there was another serial killing spree of girls as children in 1936. There are relatively few stranger murders of women, historically, though of course the Victorian population was substantially smaller then.

I had in mind the Vukotic case, the Meagher case and the Dixon case, all within the last three years. You may be right that these can be attributed to more young women walking alone at night, but the frequency is striking.

Domestic violence rates are historically impossible to compare, I think, given the nature of the crime and its setting, reportability etc.

[stui magpie]

^

Also factor in alcohol and reasons to be out in the evening.

Back in those days, pubs shut at 6pm. Shops closed at 5pm. Going out to eat at a restaurant wasn't common place, there was little reason to be out after 6pm.

People also didn't walk or jog for exercise back then, they did it for transportation.

Basically, if the number of people inclined to do these kind of acts hasn't increased, the number of potential targets has. Significantly.

I see tonight in the news, a young woman has reported being sexually assaulted during a night out, but can't recall much of the detail as she'd been drinking. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/woman-taken-into-vehicle-on-lygon-street-sexually-assaulted-20180621-p4zmwe.html

[Mugwump]

[thesoretoothsayer]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/

Swedish study but I'm assuming the results are pretty generic.
Here's the deal. If we exterminate 1% of the (mostly male) population we get rid of 63% of violent crime. Do we do it?

[Mugwump]

That doesn�t surprise me. When I worked for the Civil Sevice in the Uk we knew that 1% of families accounted for >70% of crime and >60% of police and social worker time etc.

The problem is indeed what to do with them, as they seem fairly resistant to any amelioration, no matter what resources or focus we put in. We used to say that it�d be cheaper to give them all �100k a year to go and live in Monaco. For reasons of nature and nurture, some people have a problem with their inhibitory system, and they are more likely to use a lot of drugs (incl alcohol). And so it goes.

It does suggest that the largest contributor to declining crime rates in recent years may be higher, and longer, incarceration of these people.

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

Thwy got the perpetrator of the graffitti:

No year 12 muck up kid.

31 year old male.

https://www.theage.com.au/melbourne-news/man-charged-over-eurydice-dixon-memorial-graffiti-20180628-p4zobs.html

[David]

Surprised that they were able to track him down. Will be interesting to hear the motive and whether my theories were correct.

[Nick - Pie Man]

Damn, not quite what I was expecting. At thirty one you have to assume a certain level of maturity.

[swoop42]

While it might have been highly inappropriate, spray painting on a piece of grass in a public park still appears less offensive to me than those who would choose to graffiti a permanent war memorial or an individuals headstone in a cemetery.

[think positive]

people with decent morals wouldnt do any of the above. but then She would be alive, and there would probably be no wars either.

[watt price tully]