I hope this doesn't come across as disrespectful in any way to the victims but a thought has been in my head for awhile. would EAR/ONS ever consider the risk of STD's? Would he do that much research to see if his victims were STD positive? your guy's thoughts on this. Again I mean no disrespect.
Posted Jul 12, 2017, 6:59 AM UTC
he didn't pick high-risk victims and, as others have stated, pre-AIDs there was the notion that you'd get a shot of penicillin and be on your way.
There was no aids back then but he did stop the killings once aids became more prominent, maybe he feared it.
Doubtful, AIDS was looked at as a gay men's disease in the mid to late 80's.
Mostly--but it was quickly made known to spread into other demographic groups as well. While it's true that most married people didn't really care, there was a pretty big undercurrent of concern about it among the unmarried, college-aged heterosexual crowd back in the mid-to-late '80s. My university's student health center practically made one-night stands sound like a game of Russian Roulette.
The California coastline seemed like Ground Zero for AIDS back then, and that's exactly where the EAR lived. I agree that the EAR's 1981-86 break in murders probably wasn't influenced by AIDS, but it may have been at least a partial contributing factor to the post-1986 break. I suspect that he did the 1987 Oakdale attack, and there was apparently no attempt at rape during that attack.
So true. When the world learned that Rock Hudson was dying of AIDS in 1985, fear rocked the entire country. For most people, this was the first time they had heard that there was such a virus as AIDS.
There was a lot of confusion because people didn't seem to know exactly how this virus was spread.
However, in the mid to late 70's the Herpes virus was the main STD that was becoming quite well known in California, and most likely the entire nation as well.
It's difficult to say whether or not the fear of STD's would stop someone like the EARONS from committing his heinous crimes. It is one aspect to think about though.
I remember my family was on holidays in Anaheim when Rock Hudson died. I was about 12 or 13 years old and the AIDS scare was real and very serious. I remember my Mom wouldn't let me use public bathrooms. We wud go back to the hotel. We weren't even allowed to use the hotel swimming pool. Nobody had any idea how AIDS Could be passed on.
I suspect that he did the 1987 Oakdale attack, and there was apparently no attempt at rape during that attack.
Why do you think he was responsible for this attack? Just curious, seems folks are pretty split on this. I don't believe this was a EAR/ONS attack.
Just the whole thing about being in an area that the EAR was known to operate in, around the time of the other killings, taking a log from the victim's own woodpile, entering through a rear unlocked window, (attempted) bludgeoning, etc.
While it's true that he didn't rape the victim, maybe when he saw her up close he realized she wasn't his "type" or something (I'm 99% certain he committed the 1974 murder of Eva Davidson Taylor in Goleta, and he didn't rape her either...just took a log from her woodpile and bashed her to death).
Honestly, the EAR-ONS' last two or three of known murders seemed a bit messy and significantly more poorly planned than his earlier ones, and the failed Oakdale attack would be the cherry on top of his declining stalking career that he was clearly beginning to lose his interest and passion in.
Completely agree. I doubt the fear of Aids had anything to do with his lack of attacks. I suspect ppl thiink the 1980's was aids mad, and for a couple of years later on in the 80's. It was the global warming of its time. But ear made one attack after 1981. Trust me, unless you were one of a handful of ppl dealing with the victims of aids you didnt give two hoots about the virus until later in the decade. Heck, even gay men barely changed their way of life until the mid 80's.
Speculative: I think this would depend a lot on how "tuned in" EARONS was with the rest of society. Meaning, if he was expending a lot of energy to put on a facade in his every day life - wife or gf, kids, job that required a lot of interaction with other people (particularly in the ONS phase, especially in the 5 year gap before his final murder)- he would probably be more concerned about the ramifications of bringing home an STD. If he was a loner, less (seemingly) well-adjusted, no one to answer to if he ended up with the clap, it may have been less concerning for him.
Nobody really thought about or card about STDS back then to be honest
Most likely he was ate up with the AIDS.
Hopefully he got syphillis and went nuts
then killed himself
then got more Aids
Probably not much research. Most of these women were middle class suburban white women. Often married ones at that. These women are not prime STD material. Sure, in his prowling phase if he came across a letter from a Sac Sexual Health Clinic informing a potential victim she was STD positive then yeah, he possibly would call off an attack. But I doubt such concerns were his priority.