dunno... maybe copy 'n' pastin this into a post might give me some sparkle What Makes Serial Killers Tick? by Shirley Lynn Scott Monsters or Victims? "It was an urge. . . . . A strong urge, and the longer I let it go the stronger it got, to where I was taking risks to go out and kill people--risks that normally, according to my little rules of operation, I wouldn't take because they could lead to arrest." -- Edmund Kemper Where does this urge come from, and why is so powerful? If we all experienced this urge, would we be able to resist? Is it genetic, hormonal, biological, or cultural conditioning? Do serial killers have any control over their desires? We all experience rage and inappropriate sexual instincts, yet we have some sort of internal cage that keeps our inner monsters locked up. Call it morality or social programming, these internal blockades have long since been trampled down in the psychopathic killer. Not only have they let loose the monster within, they are virtual slaves to its beastly appetites. What sets them apart? Serial killers have tested out a number of excuses for their behavior. Henry Lee Lucas blamed his upbringing; others like Jeffrey Dahmer say that they were born with a "part" of them missing. Ted Bundy claimed pornography made him do it. Herbert Mullin, Santa Cruz killer of thirteen, blamed the voices in his head that told him it was time to "sing the die song." The ruthless Carl Panzram swore that prison turned him into a monster, while Bobby Joe Long said a motorcycle accident made him hypersexual and eventually a serial lust killer. The most psychopathic, like John Wayne Gacy, turn the blame around and boast that the victims deserved to die. They must be insane -- what normal person could slaughter another human, for the sheer pleasure of it? Yet the most chilling fact about serial killers is that they are rational and calculating. As the "British Jeffrey Dahmer" Dennis Nilsen put it, "a mind can be evil without being abnormal." What They Are Before we look at who they are, we must first describe what they are. In his book The Killers Among Us, Steven Egger defines serial murder: • A minimum of three to four victims, with a "cooling off" period in between; • The killer is usually a stranger to the victim -- the murders appear unconnected or random; • The murders reflect a need to sadistically dominate the victim; • The murder is rarely "for profit"; the motive is psychological, not material; • The victim may have "symbolic" value for the killer; method of killing may reveal this meaning; • Killers often choose victims who are vulnerable (prostitutes, runaways, etc.) Statistically, the average serial killer is a white male from a lower to middle class background, usually in his twenties or thirties. Many were physically or emotionally abused by parents. Some were adopted. As children, fledgling serial killers often set fires, torture animals, and wet their beds (these red-flag behaviors are known as the "triad" of symptoms.) Brain injuries are common. Some are very intelligent and have shown great promise as successful professionals. They are also fascinated with the police and authority in general. They will either have attempted to become police themselves but were rejected, or worked as security guards, or had served in the military. Many, including John Gacy, the Hillside Stranglers, and Ted Bundy, will disguise themselves as law enforcement officials to gain access to their victims. Who They Kill Serial killers choose victims weaker than themselves. Often their victims will fit a certain stereotype which has symbolic meaning for the killer. Bundy brutally murdered college-age women with long brown hair. Was he killing, over and over again, the upper-class fiancee who broke off her engagement with him? David Berkowitz, aka "Son of Sam," was not so particular -- he hated all women: "I blame them for everything. Everything evil that's happened in the world--somehow goes back to them." Gacy savagely strangled young men, some of them his own employees, calling them "worthless little queers and punks." Some believe that Gacy's homicidal rage was projected onto the boys who represented his own inadequacy in the eyes of his own domineering father. With rare exception, serial killers objectify and humiliate their victims. Bundy deliberately kept the conversation brief -- if he got to know the victim and saw her as a real person, it would destroy the fantasy. Serial killers are sadists, seeking perverse pleasure in torturing the victim, even resuscitating them at the brink of death so they can torture them some more. ("How's it feel, knowing you're going to die?" Gacy asked his victims as he strangled them, even reciting the 23rd Psalm, urging them to be brave in the face of death.) They need to dominate, control, and "own" the person. Yet when the victim dies, they are abandoned again, left alone with their unfathomable rage and self-hatred. This hellish cycle continues until they are caught or killed. Why Are They So Difficult to Spot - Getting Away with Murder We think we can spot lunacy, that a maniac with uncontrollable urges to kill will be unable to contain himself. On the bus, in the street, it is the mentally ill we avoid, sidestepping the disheveled, unshaven man who rants on over some private outrage. Yet if you intend to avoid the path of a serial killer, your best strategy is to sidestep the charming, the impeccably dressed, polite individual. They blend in, camouflaged in contemporary anonymity. They lurk in churches, malls, and prowl the freeways and streets. "Dress him in a suit and he looks like ten other men," said one attorney in describing Dahmer. Like all evolved predators, they know how to stalk their victims by gaining their trust. Serial killers don't wear their hearts on their sleeves. Instead, they hide behind a carefully constructed facade of normalcy. Mask of Sanity Because of their psychopathic nature, serial killers do not know how to feel sympathy for others, or even how to have a relationship. Instead, they learn to simulate it by observing others. It is all a manipulative act, designed to entice people into their trap. Serial killers are actors with a natural penchant for performance. Henry Lee Lucas described being a serial killer as "being like a movie-star . . . you're just playing the part." The macabre Gacy loved to dress up as a clown, while the Zodiac suited up in a bizarre executioner's costume that looked like something out of "Alice in Wonderland." In court, Bundy told the judge "I'm disguised as an attorney today." Bundy had previously "disguised" himself as a compassionate rape crisis center counselor. The most coveted role of roaming psychopaths is a position of authority. Gacy was an active, outgoing figure in business and society, became a member of the Jaycees. Many joined the military, including Berkowitz who was intensely patriotic for a time. Playing police officer, however, is the most predictable. Carrying badges and driving coplike vehicles not only feeds their need to feel important, it allows them access to victims who would otherwise trust their instincts and not talk to strangers. Yet, when they are caught, the serial killer will suddenly assume a "mask of insanity" -- pretending to be a multiple personality, schizophrenic, or prone to black-outs -- anything to evade responsibility. Even when they pretend to truly reveal themselves, they are still locked into playing a role. What nameless dread lies behind the psychopath's mask? "What's one less person on the face of the earth anyway?" Ted Bundy's chilling rationalization demonstrates the how serial killers truly think. "Bundy could never understand why people couldn't accept the fact that he killed because he wanted to kill," said one FBI investigator. What Makes a Serial Killer Tick? Just as these killers rip open their victims to "see how they run" (as Ed Kemper put it), forensic psychiatrists and FBI agents have tried to get inside the killer’s mind. Traditional explanations include childhood abuse, genetics, chemical imbalances, brain injuries, exposure to traumatic events, and perceived societal injustices. The frightening implication is that a huge population has been exposed to one or more of these traumas. Is there some sort of lethal concoction that sets serial killers apart from the rest of the population? We believe that we have control over our impulses -- no matter how angry we get, there is something that stops us from taking our aggressions out on others. Do serial killers lack a moral safety latch? Or are they being controlled by something unfathomable? "I wished I could stop but I could not. I had no other thrill or happiness," said Dennis Nilsen, who wondered if he was truly evil. Serial killers are undeniably sick, and their numbers seem to be growing. Are we in the midst of a serial killer "epidemic," as Joel Norris describes it? If this is a disease, what is the cure? Family Tree Are serial killers truly a 20th century bogeymen? Is it our modern times that creates them, or have they been in operation before we classified them as a phenomenon? Although the term "serial killer" was coined in 1971, early fables of human/monsters reveals that there has always been danger in straying too far, or in accepting the help of strangers. The carnivorous characters in Grimm's Fairy tales become vivid metaphors of human bloodlust. Gruesome stories of Bluebeards and their bloody chambers, big bad wolves, trolls under the bridge and witches in the forest, all of whom make meals out of unsuspecting innocents, remind us of our contemporary monsters. These cautionary tales may represent an early, pre-psychological way of understanding the sadistic side of human nature. Wolfmen "Lycanthropy," a combination of the Greek words "wolf" and "man", was another early concept created to describe the horror of senseless sexual murder. In The A-Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers Harold Schechter and David Everitt describe the lycanthropic madman as sexual predators who terrorized 16th century peasant villages, so much that the authorities "regarded it as one of the most pressing social problems of the day." Among the most notorious of these medieval "wolfmen" was Gilles Garnier of France, and the German Peter Stubbe, both of whom attacked children, ripping them apart and cannibalizing them. Stubbe even went so far as to savagely mutilate his own son, gnawing at his brain. The wolfman myth is still popular today -- we still hear how a full moon can bring out the crazies. Albert Fish, the notorious cannibal killer of children, was called the "Werewolf of Wisteria," and enjoyed dancing naked in the full moon. Other lunar lunatics include Ed Gein, who also frolicking in the moonlight, dressed in his mothersuit made from the skin of women. Unlike Gein, Bobbie Jo Long did not appreciate being adorned in female body parts -- at puberty he had his abnormally enlarged breasts surgically removed. Even after the operation, Long claimed to be affected by the moon's cycles through his own bizarre "menstrual" cycle. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hydes The 19th century gave rise to another chilling predecessor to the serial killer's persona -- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Robert Louis Stevenson created a literary man/monster who embodied the Divided Self -- appearing civilized and rational on the outside, while inside a wretched brute struggled to break loose. One of the most intriguing peculiarities of serial killers is their benign, "Dr. Jekyll" appearance. They look and behave like everyman or any man -- "abnormally normal", as Mark Seltzer says. If they come across as potentially dangerous in any way, they will neutralize it in their behavior. The imposing 6'9'' Edmund Kemper cultivated a "gentle giant" routine, which helped him to lure female hitchhikers into his car. The charming Ted Bundy wore a cast, looking meekly pathetic, and asked for help. The young women who gave him a hand must have thought of it as a random act of kindness. What resulted was a senseless act of murder. The notorious Gacy entertained hospitalized children in his Pogo the Clown costume. "You know, clowns get away with murder," he once said. Gacy used rope tricks from his performance to strangle unsuspecting young men, who thought the worst they would have to endure would be some hokey entertainment. With many serial killers, the hidden Hyde comes out only after the victim is lulled into complacency. Frankensteins As a man obsessed with recreating a human being from dead body parts, Mary Shelley's Dr. Frankenstein was seeking the same ultimate power of creation as God Himself. While Dr. Frankenstein attempted to compose a man, our modern day Dr. Frankensteins are more gifted in the decomposing arts. Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nilsen both tried to create companionship in corpses. Dahmer operated on his victims, hoping for a own love-zombie who would never stray. In his own attempts to create the perfect companion, Nilsen said, "I think that in some cases I killed these men in order to create the best image of them. . . . . It was not really a bad but a perfect and peaceful state for them to be in" (As if he were doing them a favor!) "I remember being thrilled that I had full control and ownership of this beautiful body," he mused. Many believe that Ed Gein was attempting to reconstruct his mother by stealing body parts from a nearby cemetery. Vampires And of course, one of the most popular monster monikers for serial killers is "vampire." In Gothic drama, vampires represented the repressed sexuality of straitlaced Victorian society, creatures of the night driven by beastly desires. The vampire motif is so frequent that we see localized vampires ("The Vampire of Dusseldorf" Peter Kurten; "The Vampire of Hanover" Fritz Haarmann; "The Vampire of Sacramento" Richard Chase.) Kurten claimed that his "chief satisfaction in killing was to catch the blood spurting from a victim's wounds in his mouth and swallow it." Another deeply demented vampire killer, John Haigh, claimed that disturbing dreams created his unquenchable thirst for human blood: "I saw before me a forest of crucifixes, which gradually turned into trees. . . Suddenly the whole forest began to writhe and the trees, stark and erect, to ooze blood. . . . A man went to each tree catching the blood. . . . 'Drink,' he said. Early killers: How did they explain their evil? The Baron Gilles de Rais This15th century French aristocrat murdered hundreds of peasant children. Gilles blithely declared that torturing the innocent was "entirely for my own pleasure and physical delight, and for no other intention or end." Gilles was unbelievably bold in gathering victims -- he would send servants out to round up children and haul them back to his castle, as if he were collecting his rightful harvest from the peasant population. Why would a military hero and companion to Joan of Arc torture children? Gilles' excuse is precociously modern -- he blamed his parents. They didn't physically abuse him, however; the monstrous aristocrat whined that he was the hapless victim of their amoral attitudes. While lax parenting doesn't sound like a familiar prerequisite for today's serial killer, it was an arch offense by Medieval standards -- one had to be a diligent guard against the Devil's cunning ways. As a child Gilles said evil descended "when I was left uncontrolled to do whatever I pleased and to take pleasure in illicit acts." Was Gilles de Rais the sole sadistic multiple murderer of his era, or were there others who used more discretion, choosing victims who were less likely to be missed? It is impossible to say. Some, like Elliott Leyton, argue that "the curious phenomenon of the murder of strangers is extremely rare in so-called 'primitive' societies," and that it is primarily in "modern, industrializing societies that stranger-murder becomes a major homicidal theme. "We can only speculate. It can be said, however, that the major archetype of the serial sex slayer emerged in the grimy, gaslit streets of industrialized 19th century London. Jack the Ripper Jack the Ripper's infamous Whitechapel murders baffled the police and terrorized London. As the first sensationalized serial killer, the Ripper became the prototype of the lust murderer. The mystery of his identity paralleled the mystery of his motive. Nothing like this was seen before -- why would anyone go lurking in the dead of night, eviscerating poverty-stricken prostitutes? Clearly the Ripper was insane, thought the police. They explored the insane asylums, looking for a raving, woman-hating madman. Crazed immigrants, lunatic butchers, and even syphillis-ridden royalty were suspect. Most believed Jack the Ripper had to be an immigrant (Americans were a favorite suspicion) because no Englishman would commit such horrid crimes. The Ripper's bladework had some speculating he was a deranged doctor. In any case, as the insane asylums were searched and suspicious whispers echoed in respectable bourgeois homes, it became clear that the Ripper could be anyone. The uncivilized monster behind Victorian society's prim veneer had acted out in the ugliest of deeds. Popular explanations In the 19th century, civilization stopped looking to the Devil as the sole force behind violent, sadistic behavior. Instead, scientists and writers began searching for the beast within. As Fred Botting points out, the inhuman was now seen as "in-human". Darwin's theories on evolution bridged the gap between beasts and man. How far are we from our grunting, rock-throwing apelike ancestors? Not very far at all, according to 19th century criminologists Cesare Lombroso and Max Nordau, who believed that violent men had "primitive" faces with heavy jaws and low foreheads. By measuring the foreheads of Italian criminals, Lombroso believed he could target the violent criminal. Although Lombroso and his measuring tape have long since been discredited, the concept of a lingering animalistic brutality is still popular today. As we move forward, becoming more technologically advanced, there is something that refuses to budge, some primitive holdout of the darkest recesses or our psyche. Is it the caveman within, as some contemporary paleopsychologists say, the vestigial beast that got us through the "survival of the fittest" when we needed it, but now that we live in a civilized society, it is no longer needed. Franz Josef Gall promoted "phrenology." By feeling the bumps on a person's head, Gall believed that he could predict their character and level of intelligence. Physiognomy, developed by Johann Kaspar Lavatar, claimed to read a person's character in their facial features. These theories were all the rage when Herman Mudgett (aka H. H. Holmes) stood trial for running a deadly boarding house that put the Bates Motel to shame. In Depraved, Harold Schechter describes how the public, eager to know why Holmes was such a fiend, flocked to see maps of the killer's head shape, as if a certain pattern in the bumps of his skull would spell out "murderer." Holmes himself described his own evil metamorphosis: "My features are assuming a pronounced Satanical cast. . . My head and face are gradually assuming an elongated shape. I believe fully that I am growing to resemble the devil--that the similitude is almost completed. In fact, so impressed am I with this belief, that I am convinced that I no longer have anything human in me." This' "devil made me do it" routine was a transparent attempt to avoid the hangman's noose. This devil was eventually hanged for his misdeeds. Childhood Abuse "I have several children who I'm turning into killers. Wait til they grow up" - message scrawled on David Berkowitz's apartment wall, with an arrow pointing to a hole in the wall. Are some children just born "bad"? Some serial killers are precociously demented, fascinated by sadistic violence at a very early age. As a child, Ed Kemper was already beheading his sister's dolls, playing "execution" games, and once told his sister that he wanted to kiss his second grade teacher, but "if I kiss her I would have to kill her first." One of first places our society looks to for an explanation is the serial killer's upbringing. "So many of us wanted to believe that something had traumatized little Jeffrey Dahmer, otherwise we must believe that some people simply give birth to monsters," Ann Schwartz has written. In some cases, the abuse of children by their parents is barbaric, and it seems little wonder that anything but a fledgling serial killer would come from such horrible squalor. As a child, the "Boston Strangler" Albert DeSalvo was actually sold off as a slave by his alcoholic dad. Many sadistic murderers portray their childhood as an endless chain of horrifying sexual abuse, torture, and mayhem. Some stories of torture may be exaggerated for sympathy (it is always to the killer's advantage to concoct wicked parents as an excuse) but some have been corroborated by witnesses. Even families that appear healthy on the outside may be putting on an act. Children can learn the "Jeckyl and Hyde" routine from parents who are outgoing and social with neighbors and co-workers, but who scowl at their kid's inadequacies when they get home. As we examine childhood abuse as a possible key to the serial killer's behavior, we must remember that many children have suffered horrible abuse at the hands of their parents, but did not grow up to be lust murderers. Childhood abuse is not a direct link to a future in crime. And while many girls are victimized as children, very few grow up to be sadistically violent toward strangers. Childhood abuse may not be the sole excuse for serial killers, but it is an undeniable factor in many of their backgrounds. In his book Serial Killers, Joel Norris describes the cycles of violence as generational: "Parents who abuse their children, physically as well as psychologically, instill in them an almost instinctive reliance upon violence as a first resort to any challenge." Childhood abuse not only spawns violent reactions, Norris writes, but also affects the child's health, including brain injuries, malnutrition, and other developmental disorders. Some parents believed that by being harsh disciplinarians, it would "toughen" the child. Instead, it often creates a lack of love between parent and child that can have disastrous results. If the child doesn't bond with its primary caretakers, there is no foundation for trusting others later in life. This can lead to isolation, where intense violent fantasies become the primary source of gratification. "Instead of developing positive traits of trust, security, and autonomy, child development becomes dependent on fantasy life and its dominant themes, rather than on social interaction," writes Robert Ressler, Ann Burgess and John Douglas in Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. When the child grows up, according to these authors, all they know are their fantasies of domination and control. They have not developed compassion for others. Instead, humans become flattened-out symbols for them to enact their violent fantasies. In looking to the parents for explanations, we see both horrifying mothers and fathers. The blame usually falls on the mother, who has been described as too domineering or too distant, too sexually active or too repressed. Perhaps the mother is blamed more because the father has often disappeared, therefore "unaccountable." When the father is implicated, it is usually for sadistic disciplinarian tactics, alcoholic rants, and overt anger toward women. Monstrous Mothers "We're still blaming mothers." - Joyce Flint, Dahmer's mother It all seems to begin or end with Mother. Henry Lee Lucas launched his murderous career by killing his mom; Ed Kemper ended his by killing his mom. Even the Shakespearian multiple murderer Hamlet had an unnatural obsession with his mother's sexuality. "Serial murderers are frequently found to have unusual or unnatural relationships with their mothers," notes Steven Egger in his book The Killers Among Us. In our culture, the imposing image of "Mother" looms large in our collective psyches, and some writers easily accept that these killers are lashing out at maternal tyranny. If these murderers are still dominated by Mother (Hitchcock's Norman Bates is the archetype), then it is easy to dismiss them as "mama's boys" who never fully matured. Perhaps we find comfort in this cliche -- the mother is a readymade excuse, particularly in our contemporary era of obsessive parenting. Yet, as we look at some of the techniques of the serial killers' mothers, we are inclined to see a deadly link between the womb and the tomb. Uptight Moms In an effort to keep their children chaste, some mothers have linked sexuality with death. Ed Gein's religiously fanatical, notorious mother convinced her son that women were vessels of sin and caused disease. In some sort of twisted misinterpretation, Gein made literal vessels out of women, using their skulls for bowls, and other domestic objects. Ed's body may have escaped from sexual disease, but his mind was clearly contaminated. Joseph Kallinger was adopted by sadistic, Catholic parents, and after a hernia operation at age 6, his mother told him that the surgery was to keep his penis from growing. Kallinger never questioned her, and as an adult believed it had been stunted. A strict disciplinarian, Kallinger's mother forced him to hold his open hand over a flame, beating him if he cried. Kallinger later grew up taking extreme pleasure in torturing others, and became a sadistic parent himself. After taking an insurance policy out on his 13-year-old son Joey, he slowly drowned him, deaf to his own son's pleas for mercy. "I certainly wanted for my mother a nice, quiet easy death like everyone else wants," said Ed Kemper. His idea of an easy death is markedly unusual -- after beheading his mom, he shoved her vocal cords down the garbage disposal, raped her headless body, and, by some accounts, placed her head on the living room mantel and used it as a dartboard. Admittedly, Kemper's mom was a shrill, tyrannical nag who locked her young son in the basement when he grew too large and frightened his sisters. As an adult, Kemper and his mother fought constantly, yet he chose to live with her. Why not just move away and don't take her calls? "Hillside Strangler" Kenneth Bianchi's adoptive mother was pathologically over-protective. When Ken wet his pants, she took him to the doctor to have his genitals examined. One protective agency wrote that Bianchi's mother was "deeply disturbed, socially ambitious, dissatisfied, unsure, opinionated and overly protective . . . had smothered this adopted son in medical attention and maternal concern from the moment of adoption." As a child Bianchi was very dependent on his mother, yet harbored a deadly hostility beneath the surface. Loose Moms Some serial killers had their sexually uninhibited mothers to blame. These mothers overstepped the boundaries, exposing their children to inappropriate sexual behavior. Bobby Jo Long killed women he characterized as whores and sluts, who he said reminded him of his own mom. She had frequent sex (according to him) with men in the same room where Bobby slept. According to Long, he shared his bed with his mother until he was 13 years old. Charles Manson's prostitute mother Kathy Maddox, indifferently declared his name as "No Name Maddox" for his birth certificate. She hoisted him off on relatives, and in one story, famous but probably untrue, she traded the infant Charlie for a pitcher of beer. When he was sent to live with his aunt, his uncle told him he was a sissy, and punished him by sending him to school dressed as a girl. Henry Lee Lucas also suffered gender confusion as a child, courtesy of his mother's sadism. She was a heavy drinker and bootlegger. For unknown reasons she dressed him as a girl until he was 7. "I lived as a girl. I was dressed as a girl. I had long hair as a girl. I wore girl's clothes." She senselessly beat him after he had his hair cut because his teacher complained. At one point, his mom struck him on back of head with a wooden beam, fracturing his skull. Lucas was also apparently exposed to his mother's sexual activities. He killed his mother in 1951. Deadly Dads It is usually the sadistically disciplinarian father that pops up in the serial killer's family tree. John Gacy's dad berated his son, calling him a sissy, queer, and a failure. A violent alcoholic, Gacy's father beat his mother, and shot his son's beloved dog to punish young John. When Gacy later strangled his young victims, he encouraged them to stay brave while facing death. "Through this ritual, Gacy sought to reassert his own vision of a masculine identity that had been squashed down by his father," wrote Joel Norris. Albert DeSalvo's father would bring home prostitutes and brutally beat his mother, breaking her fingers one by one as young Albert helplessly watched. The elder DeSalvo sold his children off as slaves to a farmer in Maine, while his mother went frantically searching for them for six months, as story that has been confirmed by family friends and social workers. "Pa was a plumber," said DeSalvo. "he smashed me once across the back with a pipe. I didn't move fast enough." Dahmer Case Not all serial killers were beaten or abused as children. Jeffrey Dahmer had an apparently normal upbringing, yet grew up to be one of the most notorious sex murderers in popular culture. In his book A Father's Story, Lionel Dahmer searches for answers to his own son's deviance. Lionel, who describes himself as an "analytical thinker," believes that Jeffrey's mother's hysteria and psychosomatic illnesses during pregnancy might be responsible. He describes Joyce as going through a difficult pregnancy, constantly vomiting, as if her body was being sickened by what was germinating, an early biological "rejection" by mother. While pregnant with Jeff, Joyce developed strange fits of rigidity: "At times, her legs would lock tightly in place, and her whole body would grow rigid and begin to tremble. Her jaw would jerk to the right and take on a similarly frightening rigidity. During these strange seizures, her eyes would bulge like a frightened animal, and she would begin to salivate, literally frothing at the mouth." As Lionel describes it, it's as if a corpse was giving birth. Father Lionel remains detached and analytical while Mother Joyce is in the midst of a biological warfare, fighting hormones with drugs. Lionel asks, ominously, "Why was she so upset all the time? What was it that she found so dreadful?" "Then, at the end of the long trial, my son was born." Lionel's first sight of his son is in a plastic container, which is how the victims of apartment 213 will later be removed. The bloody chamber of Jeff's apartment, according to Lionel, had its origins in Joyce's drugged womb. While Lionel implicates Joyce as the biological contaminant in Jeffrey's sickness, he admits to his own destructive inclinations, which may have been passed on to their son. Lionel was fascinated by fire and made bombs as child. "A dark pathway had been dug into my brain," he writes. Little Jeffrey is transfixed by pile of bones, which only seems macabre after the adult Jeffrey's deadly deeds. At the time, Lionel saw it as normal curiosity. At age 4, Jeffrey had a double hernia, and had to have surgery. "So much pain, I learned later, that he had asked Joyce if the doctors had cut off his penis." Lionel thinks this quasi-castrating surgery affected his son: "In Jeff, this flattening began to take on a sense of something permanent," he wrote. "This strange and subtle inner darkening began to appear almost physically. His hair, which had once been so light, grew steadily darker, along with the deeper shading of his eyes. More than anything, he seemed to grow more inward, sitting quietly for long periods, hardly stirring, his face oddly motionless." Both father and son found solace in controlling biological experiments. "In the lab, I found a wonderful comfort and assurance in knowing the properties of things, how they could be manipulated in predictable patterns. It provided a great relief from the chaos I found at home." Jeff became shy and fearful of others, just as his dad had been. "It was as if some element of my character yearned for complete predictability, for rigid structure," said Lionel. "I simply didn't know how things worked with other people." Lionel recognized that Jeffrey was "so intimidated by their presence, that in order for him to have contact with them, they needed to be dead." Lionel sees a "terrible vacancy" in own son's eyes, and wonders, "Am I like that?" and sees his son as a "deeper, darker shadow" of himself. He remembers that at the age of 13 he wanted to hypnotize and cast a spell over a girl, "so I could control her entirely." At what point does an innocent fantasy warp into a deadly fascination? Can we control the inner life of our children? Lionel warns that "some of us are doomed to pass a curse instead." The frightening conclusion of Lionel Dahmer's cautionary tale is that we can be blind to our own destructive tendencies, and may innocently pass them on. "Fatherhood remains, at last, a grave enigma, and when I contemplate that my other son may one day be a father, I can only say to him, as I must to every father after me, "Take care, take care, take care." Childhood Events Adoption Adoption as a potential contribution to the serial killer's motivation is fascinating because it creates two questions. The first one is that the biological parents may have left their child with deviant genes. (We will look into the genetics of serial killers shortly.) Finding out that one was adopted may also undermine the sense of identity in a fragile youth, and make the child prone to fantasizing an identity of his "true" parents, either good or bad. Was the mother a prostitute? A nun? Was the father a gangster? A hero? And why did they "reject" their child? This sense of rejection can have profound consequences on an already unstable psyche. If the child actually meets his biological parent and is again rejected, the damage is worse. David Berkowitz was deeply hurt when his biological mom brushed him off. Some have speculated that Berkowitz's "Son of Sam" was an fantasy attempt to reclaim a parent/child identity that had been crushed in real life.According to Bundy biographers Michaud and Aynesworth, Ted's emotional growth was stopped in its tracks after he learned that he was illegitimate at age 13. "It was like I hit a brick wall," Bundy had said. Of course, he tried out every excuse he could rummage, so it's difficult to take his word on this when his family life appeared otherwise healthy. It goes without saying that adoption does not create serial killers. At worst, it may dislodge a child's self-identity. But that does not mean that finding oneself in multiple murder is the only option available to adopted children. Witnessing Violence Some lust murderers claim that exposure to violent events ignited their thirst for blood. Ed Gein, among others, said that seeing farm animals slaughtered gave him perverted ideas. But wouldn't that make 4-H a breeding ground for serial killers? Both Albert Fish and Andrei Chikatilo blamed their sadistic bloodlust on frightening childhood stories. Does this mean we can expect Stephen King's children to top the murder charts? Even truly traumatic experiences don't automatically create a serial killer. "Acid Bath Murderer" John Haigh, as a child, ran outside after a WWII bombing at his London home. The bomb came with "a horrifying shriek, and as I staggered up, bruised and bewildered, a head rolled against my foot." Joel Peter Witkin, a well-known artist who's work is admittedly gruesome but fascinating, experienced the same event after witnessing a car accident. So what makes one person become a serial killer, and another a famous artist? Reform school in the early 20th century did anything but reform. The stories of sadistic guards and medieval punishments are almost paralleled by the violent behavior of the prisoners who went on to serial killing. Fortunately, this sort of extreme discipline is no longer openly tolerated. Although 1920's killer Carl Panzram was an incorrigible juvenile delinquent, the brutal torture he received in reform school aggregated his violent rage. "From the treatment I received while there and the lessons I learned from it, I had fully desided when I left there just how I would live my life. I made up my mind that I would rob, burn, destroy and kill every where I went and everybody I could as long as I lived. Thats the way I was reformed . . . " Henry Lee Lucas also claimed prison transformed him into a serial killer. Manson said that he was raped and beaten by other prisoners when he was 14, while a particularly sadistic guard would masturbate as he watched. The grandfatherly pervert Albert Fish blamed his sadomasochistic impulses on his experiences at a Washington, D.C. orphanage: " I saw so many boys whipped, it took root in my head." Peer Rejection For different reasons, many multiple murderers are isolated as children. Lucas, who was already a shy child, was ridiculed because of his artificial eye. He later said that this mass rejection caused him to hate everyone. Kenneth Bianchi was also a child loner, with many problems. One clinical report said that "the boy drips urine in his pants, doesn't make friends very easily and has twitches. The other children make fun of him." Dahmer was antisocial as a kid, laughing when he saw a fellow classmate injured. He later became an alcoholic teenager, routinely ignored by his peers. As the isolation grows more severe, the reliance on fantasies, especially destructive ones, can grow. These fantasies of violence often reveal themselves through two of the three "triads" of predicting criminal behavior, firestarting and animal cruelty. The Triad Animal Cruelty These secret compulsions are seen as the seeds to greater mayhem. "Violent acts are reinforced, since the murderers either are able to express rage without experiencing negative consequences or are impervious to any prohibitions against these actions. Second, impulsive and erratic behavior discourages friendships," increasing isolation." "Furthermore, there is no challenge to the offenders' beliefs that they are entitled to act the way they do." (Ressler, et al, Sexual Homicide) "All learning, according to Ressler, has a "feedback system." Torturing animals and setting fires will eventually escalate to crimes against fellow human beings, if the pattern is not somehow broken. Torturing animals is a disturbing red flag. Animals are often seen as "practice" for killing humans. Ed Kemper buried the family cat alive, dug it up, and cut off its head. Dahmer was notorious for his animal cruelty, cutting off dogs heads and placing them on a stick behind his house. Yet not all serial killers take their aggressions out on pets. Dennis Nilsen loved animals, particularly his dog Bleep, whom he couldn't bear to face after being arrested for fear that it would traumatize the dog. Rapist torturer and murderer of eight, Christopher Wilder, had made donations to Save The Whales and the Seal Rescue Fund. Pyromania Peter Kurten loved to watch houses burn, and Berkowitz, when he tired of torturing his mother's parakeet, became a prolific pyromaniac, keeping record of his 1,411 fires. "Oh, what ecstasy," said Joseph Kallinger to his biographer Flora Schreiber, "setting fires brings to my body! What power I feel at the thought of fire! . . . Oh, what pleasure, what heavenly pleasure!" Pyromania is often a sexually stimulating activity for these killers. The dramatic destruction of property feeds the same perverse need to destroy another human. Because serial killers don't see other humans as more than objects, the leap between setting fires and killing people is easy to make. Bed Wetting Bed wetting is the most intimate of these "triad" symptoms, and is less likely to be willfully divulged. By some estimates, 60% of multiple murderers wet their beds past adolescence. Kenneth Bianchi apparently spent many a night marinating in urine-soaked sheets. Conclusion Formative years may play a role in the molding of a serial killer, but they cannot be the sole reason in every case. Many killers blame their families for their behavior, seeking sympathy. In true psychopathic fashion, serial killers are blaming someone else for their actions. If their bad childhood is the primary reason for their homicidal tendencies, then why don't their siblings also become serial killers? And if these conditions truly created them, serial killers would probably be unionized by now, there would be so many of them (a sad commentary on our continuing neglect of children.) We must look at other components to see what pushes a serial killer over the edge Psychopaths? "I'm the most cold-blooded sonofabitch you'll ever meet," said Ted Bundy. "I just liked to kill, I wanted to kill." The hallmark of the psychopath is the inability to recognize others as worthy of compassion. Victims are dehumanized, flattened into worthless objects in the murderer's mind. John Gacy, never showing an ounce of remorse, called his victims "worthless little queers and punks," while the "Yorkshire Ripper" Peter Sutcliffe brashly declared that he was "cleaning up the streets" of the human trash. In the 19th century, psychopathology was considered to be "moral insanity". Today it is commonly known as "antisocial personality disorder" or "sociopathology." Current experts believe that sociopaths are an unfortunate fusion of interpersonal, biological and sociocultural disasters. Psychopaths/sociopaths are diagnosed by their purposeless and irrational antisocial behavior, lack of conscience, and emotional vacuity. They are thrill seekers, literally fearless. Punishment rarely works, because they are impulsive by nature and fearless of the consequences. Incapable of having meaningful relationships, they view others as fodder for manipulation and exploitation. According to one psychological surveying tool (DSM IIIR) between 3 - 5% of men are sociopaths; less than 1% of female population are sociopaths. Psychopaths often make successful businessmen or world leaders. Not all psychopaths are motivated to kill. But when it is easy to devalue others, and you have had a lifetime of perceived injustices and rejection, murder might seem like a natural choice. The following are environmental factors, psychiatrists say, which create a sociopath: • Studies show that 60% of psychopathic individuals had lost a parent; • Child is deprived of love or nurturing; parents are detached or absent; • Inconsistent discipline: if father is stern and mother is soft, child learns to hate authority and manipulate mother; • Hypocritical parents who privately belittle the child while publicly presenting the image of a "happy family". Genetics Tests are showing that the nervous system of the psychopath is markedly different -- they feel less fear and anxiety than normal people. One carefully conducted experiment revealed that "low arousal levels" not only causes impulsiveness and thrill-seeking, but also showed how dense sociopaths are when it comes to changing their behavior. A group of sociopaths and a group of healthy individuals were given a task, which was to learn what lever (out of four) turned on a green light. One lever gave the subject an electric shock. Both groups made the same number of errors, but the healthy group quickly learned to avoid the punishing electric shock, while sociopaths took much longer to do so. This need for higher levels of stimulation makes the psychopath seek dangerous situations. When Gacy heard an ambulance, he would follow to see what sort of exciting catastrophe was in the making. Part of the reason for many serial killers seeking to become cops is probably due to the intensity of the job. Genetics and physiological factors also contribute to the building of a psychopath. One study in Copenhagen focused on a group of sociopaths who had been adopted as infants. The biological relatives of sociopaths were 4 - 5 times more likely to be sociopathic than the average person. Yet genetics don't tell the whole story; it only shows a predisposition to antisocial behavior. Environment can make or break the psychopathic personality. When a psychopath does inherit genetically-based, developmental disabilities, its is usually a stunted development of the higher functions of the brain. 30 - 38% of psychopaths show abnormal brain wave patterns, or EEGs. Infants and children typically have slower brain wave activity, but it increases as they grow up. Not with psychopaths. Eventually, the brain might mature as the psychopath ages. This may be why most serial killers are under 50. The abnormal brain wave activity comes from the temporal lobes and the limbic system of the brain, the areas that control memory and emotions. When development of this part of the brain is genetically impaired, and the parents of the child are abusive, irresponsible or manipulative, the stage is set for disaster. Can psychopaths be successfully treated? According to the psychiatrists, "No." Shock treatment doesn't work; drugs have not proven successful in treatment; and psychotherapy, which involves trust and a relationship with the therapist, is out of the question, because psychopaths are incapable of opening up to others. They don't want to change. Most psychopaths end up in prison, instead of psychiatric hospitals. Inside the Psychopathic Mind According to Dr. J. Reid Meloy, author of The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment, the psychopath is only capable of sadomasochistic relationships based on power, not attachment. Psychopaths identify with the aggressive role model, such as an abusive parent, and attack the weaker, more vulnerable self by projecting it onto others. As multiple murderer Dennis Nilsen put it, "I was killing myself only but it was always the bystander who died." Dr. Meloy writes that in early childhood development, there is a split in the infant psychopath: the "soft me" which is the vulnerable inside, and the "hard not-me" which is the intrusive, punishing outside (neglectful or painful experiences.) The infant comes to expect that all outside experiences will be painful, and so he turns inward. In an attempt to protect himself from a harsh environment, the infant develops a "character armor," distrusting everything outside, and refusing to allow anything in. The child refuses to identify with parents, and instead sees the parent as a malevolent stranger. Soon, the child has no empathy for anyone. The wall has been built to last. "Human nature is a nuisance, and fills me with disgust. Every so often one must let off steam, as it were," said "Acid Bath Murderer" John Haigh. In normal development, the child bonds with the mother for nurturing and love. But for the psychopath, the mother is experienced as an "aggressive predator, or passive stranger." In the case of violent psychopaths, including serial killers, the child bonds through sadomasochism or aggression. According to Meloy, "This individual perversely and aggressively does to others as a predator what may, at any time, be done to him." The Victim Through the Psychopath's Eyes When they are stalking a victim, psychopaths don't consciously feel anger, "but the violence shows the dissociated effect." Many killers seem to go into a trance during their predatory and killing phases. The psychopath seeks idealized victims in order to shame, humiliate, and destroy them."'I must have' ends with 'It was not worth having,'" says Meloy. By degrading the victim, the psychopath is attempting to destroy the hostile enemy within his own mind. At Gacy's trial, forensic psychiatrist Richard Rappaport said that "he is so convinced that these qualities exist in this other person, he is completely out of touch with reality. . . and he has to get rid of them and save himself . . . he has to kill them." The victim is seen as a symbolic object. Bundy described it by using the third person: "Since this girl in front of him represented not a person, but again the image, or something desirable, the last thing we would expect him to want to do would be to personalize this person. . . . Chattering and flattering and entertaining, as if seen through a motion picture screen." And later, "They wouldn't be stereotypes necessarily. But they would be reasonable facsimiles to women as a class. A class not of women, per se, but a class that has almost been created through the mythology of women and how they are used as objects." If Bundy got to know anything too personal about the victim, it ruined the illusion. Deluded Warriors In a manic state, the psychopath is fearless and thinks he is omnipotent, sometimes evil incarnate, as we have seen in Richard Ramirez's "Night Stalker" run. They are completely out of touch with reality. One psychopath, while in custody, would dress himself as an Indian warrior using his own feces as warpaint. Many serial killers identify with the myth of the warrior. Calavaras County torturer Leonard Lake was fascinated by medieval knights, and on a more modern cinematic note, many serial killers, including Gacy and Kemper, worshipped John Wayne, the American archetype of the lone warrior. Smooth Talkers Psychopaths know society's rights and wrongs, and will behave as if they sincerely believe in these values. "There are individuals who are so psychopathically disturbed that, in my opinion, no attempts should be made to treat them," says Meloy. Many psychopaths will read psychology books, and become skilled at imitating other more "sympathetic" mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia. They will use any means possible to manipulate their evaluators. Do psychopaths ever legitimately hear voices in their heads? According to Meloy, "most functionally psychotic individuals do not experience command hallucinations, and those who do generally successfully resist them." John Gacy was "a smooth talker and an obscurer who was trying to white-wash himself of any wrongdoing. He has a high degree of social intelligence or awareness of the proper way to behave in order to influence people," said Eugene Gauron, who evaluated Gacy before the killings began. Still, he was released. Perhaps the most dramatic duping of the doctors was Ed Kemper's evaluation. Two psychiatrists interviewed him and agreed that he was now "safe." All the while, Kemper had the head of one of his victims sitting in the trunk of his car, parked outside the doctors' office. Bundy charmed his way into the good graces of his jailers, only to escape when they became more lax in their watch of him. Lustmord Is serial murderer ultimately a quest for sex or power, or both? It depends on who you ask. Some believe that sexual domination is an expression of the need for power. "Sex is only an instrument used by the killer to obtain power and domination over his victim," writes Steven Egger. According to Bundy, sex was not the principal source of gratification. "I want to master life and death," he said. He wanted total control over his victims: "Possessing them physically as one would possess a potted plant, a painting, or a Porsche. Owning, as it were, this individual." Others believe that a deviant sexual drive is the cause, and power is the tool to achieve sexual satisfaction. Some serial killers will identify with perceived sources of power, in an attempt to siphon off some of the feeling of control and omnipotence for themselves. Some will indulge in illusions of religious grandeur, be it Christ or Satan. Others look to the police, and will mimic them, as if their borrowed authority gives the killer the authority to kill others. One of the most chilling power role models, however, is Hitler. As a teenager, British Patrick Mackay was grimly predicted to become a "cold, psychopathic killer" by one of his doctors. Mackay identified with Hitler, and would pose in his own handcrafted Nazi uniforms. After confessing to killing eleven people, including a Catholic priest with an axe, he declared, "I shan't shed a tear. Life is full of shocks of all descriptions and they have to be faced." Sexual Deviance "The demons wanted my penis," wrote David Berkowitz. For the "Son of Sam" murderer, sex was not something that involved a willing partner. Instead, his warped sexual fantasies, bred in social isolation, conjured up abstract forces of evil. We usually think of demons as pursuing loftier goals, such as wayward souls, not penises. But for the lust murderer, sexuality, power, and domination are intertwined so tightly they bleed into one another. It is difficult to tell where sexual lust leaves off, and lust for blood takes over. Sexual Homicide According to Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas in Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives, the number of "murders classified as 'unknown motives' has risen dramatically." They believe that there are two types of sexual homicide: "the rape or displaced anger murderer" and the "sadistic, or lust murderer." How does a lust murderer differ from a rapist who kill their victims to keep from being caught? Rapists who kill, according to one study cited in Sexual Homicide (Ressler et al), "rarely find any sexual satisfaction from the murder nor do they perform postmortem sexual acts. In contrast, the sadistic murderer kills as part of a ritualized sadistic fantasy." Mutilation is "overkill," obsessively injuring the victim's body far beyond what it necessary to kill the victim. Because psychopaths have a low arousal rate, it takes more to stimulate them. Macabre mutilations excite the lust murderer. For them, killing triggers a bizarre sexual fantasy which had developed in the dark recesses of their warped minds. Ressler writes that "since his sexual history is that of solo sex, and he finds interpersonal relationships difficult, if not impossible, he reverts to masturbatory acts even when a real partner (his victim) is available. Masturbation generally occurs after death, when his fantasy is strongest." Because the fantasies do not involve an actual person but a symbolic, sacrificial victim, the violence can escalate after death. "Mutilations often occur when the victim is already dead, a time when killer has ultimate control over the victim," writes Ressler. Many of the serial killers we have discussed admit to an abnormally strong sex drive. Ed Kemper, who would often behead his victims before raping them, said that he had a "very strong sensual drive, a weird sexual drive that started early, a lot earlier than normal." Yet he fantasized about dead women, not living ones. "If I killed them, you know, they couldn't reject me as a man. It was more or less making a doll out of a human being . . . and carrying out my fantasies with a doll, a living human doll." The most disturbing thrill Kemper got from murder was the sexual excitement in decapitating his victims: "I remember there was actually a sexual thrill . . . you hear that little pop and pull their heads off and hold their heads up by the hair. Whipping their heads off, their body sitting there. That'd get me off," he said. Kemper went on to say, "With a girl, there's a lot left in the girl's body without a head. Of course, the personality is gone." Those pesky personalities that serial killers find so troublesome in their victims explains why they go to such extreme lengths to depersonalize the bodies of their victims with horrifying mutilations. What is it about a personality that these killers find so threatening, that they need to obliterate it? Other killers who had abnormal sex drives include the "Boston Strangler," Albert DeSalvo, who reportedly needed sexual release at least five times a day. He even went on to blame the murders on his wife's coldness. "It really was Woman that I wanted, not any special one, just Woman with what a woman has," he said. David Berkowitz compulsively masturbated, and "his preoccupation with oral sexuality," wrote Dr. David Abrahamsen, "suggests his immature sexual development." Because sex is linked to death, not life, for the lust murderer, the concept of procreation disturbs them. "Sex should not exist," said John Haigh. "Propagation should be an insensible act, like the throwing off of acorns by an oak tree." For some of these killers, sexuality is equated with sin and death by overzealous parents who were anxious to keep their sons from becoming promiscuous. Their libidinous drive was channeled into other deviant behavior. "Lipstick Killer" William Heirens claimed that burglary was his primary form of sexual release. As a child, he had been warned that sexual contact was dirty and "caused disease." Joseph Kallinger, who was raised by sadistic Catholic parents who told him his penis had been operated on to keep it from growing (it was actually a hernia operation) was sexually excited by fires. For Ed Gein, who had been sternly taught that sex was sinful and degenerate, it almost seems natural that he would associate his own sexual curiosity with death, the fruit of sin itself. Killing the Woman Within Henry Lee Lucas, who was forced to dress like a girl as a child, declared, "I was death on women. I didn't feel they need to exist. I hated them, and I wanted to destroy every one I could find. I was doing a good job of it." Many believe that John Gacy was killing young men who symbolically represented his own hated homosexual self. Bobby Joe Long, who had an extra X (or female) chromosome, and grew breasts in puberty, brutally murdered prostitutes, and women who reminded him of his mother's promiscuity. Currently, there is debate over whether serial killers who are "insecure" in their masculinity are the most vicious killers, as if they needed to excavate and destroy the female lurking within. Joel Norris wrote that if "the killer is especially savage with respect to the bodies of his female victims, police should look for evidence of feminine physical traits on the suspect. Does he have especially fine hair . . . Are his features disproportionately delicate?" Yet, as Richard Tithecott points out in his book Of Men and Monsters: Jeffrey Dahmer and the Construction of the Serial Killer, "The motivation of serial killers is frequently explained in terms of the need to expel: to expel the feminine, to expel the homosexual. . . . The question (and the problem) becomes not masculinity but femininity, or rather femininity's invasion of masculinity." Tithecott goes on to point out that somehow feminine qualities are to blame for the killer's psychosis, when historically, almost all aggressive acts are masculine in nature. This targeting of the "female within" is nothing more than the serial killer's attempt to blame the victim. Morbid Curiosity and Cannibalism: Before they begin killing, many serial killers display a fascination with death. This in itself is not unusual. Perhaps if their antisocial personalities had not gotten in the way, serial killers may have become doctors, scientists, morticians, or even artists. Gacy worked in a mortuary, sleeping in the embalming room, alone with corpses, but was fired after corpses were found partially undressed. Dennis Nilsen pretended he was a corpse and masturbated in the mirror to his own dead image. As a youngster Berkowitz became fascinated by the morbid: "I always had a fetish for murder and death -- sudden death and bloodshed appealed to me," he said. Jeffrey Dahmer, who loved the dissection in biology class, told a classmate that he sliced open the fish he caught because "I want to see what it looks like inside, I like to see how things work." He later gave the police the same excuse -- he cut open his victims "to see how they work." His attorney rationalized Jeffrey's cannibalism by declaring that "he ate body parts so that these poor people he killed would become alive in him." Cannibalism is a literal form of internalization: instead of making room in their hearts for the one they crave, the cannibal makes room in his stomach for the one they desire. The metaphorical hunger for another's companionship becomes a literal hunger. Many describe it as a way to incorporate the other into oneself. Because psychopaths are incapable of experiencing empathy and love, this crude and primitive form of bonding becomes a sickening substitute. One particularly gruesome example of this notion of "all-consuming love" is Japanese cannibal Issei Sagawa, who killed and ate a Dutch student. He would lucidly recount how he coveted his victim: "My passion is so great I want to possess her. I want to eat her. If I do she will be mine forever." Sagawa hesitates when discovers her womb: "If she had lived she would have had a baby in this womb. The thought depresses me for a moment." But Sagawa continued on. The Martha Stewart of serial killers, Ed Gein's gruesome home improvements featured lamp shades made from human skin, seat covers, and skulls used for drinking cups. He also made clothing and bracelets out of body parts. Anatomical textbooks were not enough to satisfy his curiosity -- he took to grave robbing, and eventually murder. Are They Insane? Are serial killers insane? Not by legal standards. "The incidence of psychosis among murderers is no greater than the incidence of psychosis in the total population," said psychiatrist Donald Lunde. The legal definition of insanity is based on the 19th century McNaghten Rules: Does the offender understand the difference between right and wrong? If he flees or makes any attempt to hide the crime, then the offender is not insane, because his actions show that he understood that what he was doing was wrong. Yet what person in their right mind would filet young children and write letters to the parents, rhapsodizing over what a fine meal their child made? In the case of Albert Fish, the jury found him "insane, but he deserved to die anyway." Only a few, including the dimwitted Ed Gein and sadistic Peter Sutcliffe have successfully pleaded insanity. Always looking to manipulate, serial killers will do just about anything to convince the authorities of their insanity. Being declared "legally insane" means avoiding death row, and if the criminal can convince his keepers that he has fully recovered, there is the hope of actually being released. "Acid Bath Murderer" John Haigh drank his own urine in front of a jury to convince them of his insanity, but only served to repulse them more. William Hickman was stupid enough to put in writing his intention to convince the jury he is crazy: "I intend to throw a laughing, screaming, diving act before the prosecution finishes their case. . ." (He closes this letter to a fellow inmate with "P.S. You know and I know that I'm not insane however." Alter Egos One of the most predictable attempts to shift the blame is by creating an evil dark side, or alter ego. Some of these creations are named as the true culprits of the crimes. While in custody H. H. Holmes invented "Edward Hatch," who he claimed was the shadowy mastermind behind the murder of the young Pietzel children. "Lipstick Killer" William Heirens created George Murman, and actually corresponded with George by letters. John Gacy based his alter ego, "Jack Hanley," on a actual cop by the same name. Gacy's Jack was tough, in control, and loathed homosexuality. When Gacy drank too much, the punishing hand of Jack would take control. One of the most notorious alter egos is "Hillside Strangler" Kenneth Bianchi's "Steve Walker." Steve came out during hypnotic sessions as the aggressive opposite to Ken's gentle guy act. Clever hypnotists were able to snare Steve as a hoax. (It was later revealed that Bianchi had seen the movie "Sybil" two days prior to his psychiatric evaluation.) Fabricating an alter ego is a convenient way to pin the guilt on another, even if that other is within. It's a psychological variation of "the devil made me do it." But diabolical alter egos are usually clumsy constructions that fall apart under scrutiny. At best, a legitimate split personality could hope for a mental institution instead of death row. But authentic cases are exceptionally rare. Schizophrenia Most schi
PimpDaddy, you already have enough sparkle without having to post articles about your true nature....
That was actually really interesting. I did my thesis on serial killer psychology, and have been doing partial research on the matter since then. It's a personal affair. Favourite movie: American Psycho. It's a fascinating voyage into the psyche of the classic serial killer, though this one is unusual in his Harvard education and his Wall St. position. I'll never be able to hear Phil Collins again; bloody orgies and chainsawed victims keep springing to mind...
I didn't understand that movie. The impression that I got; was that he didn't kill anyone. It was all in his head.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skully: Favourite movie: American Psycho. It's a fascinating voyage into the psyche of the classic serial killer, though this one is unusual in his Harvard education and his Wall St. position. I'll never be able to hear Phil Collins again; bloody orgies and chainsawed victims keep springing to mind...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yeah, the movie was kinda gory, but did you read the book? now THAT'S a treat
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by loki: yeah, the movie was kinda gory, but did you read the book? now THAT'S a treat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> i'd like to read the book.... anyone know where i can get a txt copy of it??
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cheezedawg: I didn't understand that movie. The impression that I got; was that he didn't kill anyone. It was all in his head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did Patrick Bateman really commit the murders? Clearly, American Psycho dedicates many scenes to establish the superficiality of its characters, mostly by placing them in frivolous situations. Nevertheless, the film does not render the characters decadent or perverse enough to allow the criminal behaviors of Patrick Bateman. Still, the society's illogical indifference toward Patrick's questionable activities seems to point to the possibility that perhaps Patrick Bateman did not commit the murders but simply fantasized about them. This troubling notion of ambiguity is complemented by the fact that the protagonist offers a subjective --and perhaps unreliable-- narration. However, one must first understand the symbiotic relationship between Patrick Bateman and his society, in order to know if Patrick Bateman really committed the murders, and if so, why he didn't get caught. There are thirteen instances in which Patrick Bateman reveals some truth about his psychosis, and in which he also benefits (or suffers) from not being understood or not being heard. In all cases there is a type of "justifier" which explains the other's indifference or lack of reaction to Patrick's psychosis. The first instance recalls the scene in a dance club, where Patrick is not heard by the female bartender as he threatens to murder her. In this case, the "justifier" is the loud music. The second instance involves a Chinese couple at a cleaners, who Patrick violently insults for not accepting to clean his bloodstained sheets. The justifier here is the fact that all three characters cannot communicate effectively in the same language. Patrick expresses his rage but is not understood; the non English-speaking Chinese woman reacts to the blood stains, but is not understood by Patrick. (In this same scene, Patrick unexpectedly encounters an old girlfriend, who seems shocked as she notices the bloodstained sheets, but who is nevertheless distracted by her own eagerness to set up a date with Patrick.) The third instance pertains to a scene where Patrick socializes with a group of women. One, a model, asks him "what he does", and although Patrick answers honestly "...mostly murders and executions," she understands a more logical "mergers and acquisitions." Here, the justifier is her logical expectations plus the similar sounds of the phrase. In the fourth instance, Paul Allen is about to be murdered. Offering what seems like a warning, Patrick tells him: "I like to dissect girls," yet in this case the justifier is that Paul Allen is too drunk and he naturally has the justification to doubt what he heard. In the fifth instance, Patrick drags Paul's corpse, which he put inside a large bag, across the lobby of his apartment building, and passes the building's security guard. Incredibly, the guard does not notice a trail of blood across the lobby's floor. This may be regarded as proof that there was no trail of blood, and therefore no murder. However, although this instance does confront the viewer with what is occurring versus what is unlikely to occur (i.e., the guard not seeing the blood), the scene acts in support of the notion that most characters lack the instinct or the will to see (and much less to question) the symptoms of Patrick's psychosis. The justifier for this instance recalls the medium-long shot of a weary guard sitting in a low chair behind a high counter, who with a glance recognizes Patrick and instantly lowers his eyes to the original position, resuming whatever he was doing. In the sixth (and most effective) instance, Patrick is recognized by an acquaintance as he loads the bag/corpse inside the trunk of a car. The friend looks at the unnaturally bulky bag with an expression of awe and states: "Ooh!... Where did you get that overnight bag?" Clearly, the justifier is the character's instinctive attention to the material, superficial aspects of his surroundings. The seventh instance is the most extreme. In this scene, Patrick feels persecuted and desperately needs to unmask himself. He calls his lawyer and confesses to his answering machine that he has killed many people, including Paul Allen. When he encounters the lawyer soon afterwards, the lawyer not only congratulates him for the joke but has mistaken Patrick for another client of his. The justifier stresses the lawyer's incapacity to distinguish between a real and a false declaration of guilt, and emphasizes the lawyer's resistance toward the notion of truth. Furthermore, having confused Patrick with someone else establishes the lawyer's unreliability and tendency to confuse people. This weakens the lawyer's statement that he had seen the supposedly dead Paul Allen in London. The eighth and ninth instances involve Patrick's fiancée Evelyn, and his secretary Jean. In the first instance, Patrick and Evelyn are in a restaurant and he decides to terminate the engagement, adding vaguely that he has problems and that he needs help. During this explanation, Patrick draws on the table's paper cover a woman being split open with a chain saw. Although signs are provided to point out Patrick's psychotic tendencies (which he seems to want to communicate), the justifier shows that Evelyn is too distracted by the thrill of spotting an acquaintance at a distance. In the ninth instance, Patrick suffers a crisis and calls Jean from a pay phone. However revealing his words, the noise from the street drowns his voice and provides the justifier which exempts Jean from hearing Patrick's confession. (Jean, however, is the only character who gains some understanding of Patrick's psychosis. She is also the only character who addresses Patrick with a meaningful idea. [She asks: "Have you ever wanted to make someone happy?"]. Jean is the only character who Patrick shows some sympathy for and who he spontaneously decides not to kill. Lastly, Jean is the only character who discovers the sadistic drawings that evidence Patrick Bateman's psychosis.) The tenth and most important instance where Patrick Bateman is misjudged involves detective Donald Kimball, who seems to have the information necessary to reveal Patrick's culpability of Paul Allen's disappearance. Kimball promises to be a pivotal character who will determine the fate of Patrick Bateman. However, during a lunch meeting, Kimball clears Patrick's fear of being caught by explaining that someone claimed that Patrick had dinner with the usual group of friends on the night and the time of the murder. Although the viewer might seem confused with this information and may begin to doubt the reality of Paul's death, an important justifier returns all culpability to Patrick Bateman: due to the fact that the usual group of friends is previously seen making reservation after reservation, day after day, night after night, and that the same group of friends is also seen drinking or using drugs, it is therefore acceptable and expected that the friend might have automatically assumed that Patrick had joined the group that evening, as he so commonly did. One may argue that, in the eleventh instance, it was no coincidence that detective Kimball showed Patrick the "Hip to Be Square" compact disc to test his reaction, as he claims simply to have recently purchased it. Perhaps it seems likely that Kimball knew about Patrick's murder scene in which he played this song. However, it is important not to deny the fact that the music pertains to the 1980s and explains the fact that millions of Americans purchased the same music. Thus, the setting (1980s New York) acts as the justifier for this instance. The twelfth instance offers an ambiguous resolution to the mechanics of eliminating the evidence sorrounding the murder case of Paul Allen. After Patrick has met with detective Kimball, who "figures out" that Patrick "could not have been" the murderer, Patrick goes back to the slaughter house, that is, Paul Allen's apartment. Before entering, Patrick places a painter's mask to cover his mouth and nose from the expected stench of the victims' decomposing corpses. This detail implies an ellipses of time between the revelation of the "hidden compartments" full of victims (during Christie's forced tour of the house) and the present moment. As he enters the apartment, Patrick (and the viewer) is completely astounded by the turn of events: the blood stained walls are perfectly white, the apartment is empty, and there are people touring the apartment. Discovering empty buckets of white paint where the corpses had originally been, Patrick's painter's mask nicely proves to be a justifier to the woman who now approaches him. She is a real estate agent who questions Patrick's presence. Realizing he is "looking for Paul Allen's place," she lowers her voice and warns: "Listen, I don't want any trouble here," and asks Patrick to leave. How may this instance be justified? In spite of the effective ambiguity that seems to support the idea that no slaughters ever occurred, there is a quite simple and logical explanation which consistently integrates the society's concern for "outer perfection" and for projecting a perfect image of oneself. The justifier for the thirteenth instance, therefore, proves that as everything points to Paul Allen being the one responsible for all the murders, his family then needs to avoid the scandal. This refers back to an interrogation scene, where Kimball explains that there is no information regarding Paul's disappearance on the newspaper in order to keep the case private. Lastly, a final justifier may also point to society's concern for material objects, and wealth, as it suggests that selling the apartment is a priority (perhaps it would have been more difficult to sell a slaughter house), thus pointing to the inflated value of New York's real estate market. All 13 instances (in which Patrick reveals some truth about his psychosis but is nevertheless misunderstood, not seen or not heard) establish an ambiguity in order to portray a society which --for whatever the reason or the justifier-- does not listen and does not question the truth nor explore the veracity behind recognizable facades. The importance of the "justifiers" lies in that they offer the justifications necessary for understanding why the protagonist is not fully known nor understood by the other characters. The fact that the justifiers describe how Patrick Bateman could in fact commit the murders and not get caught, proves that it is possible for him to commit the murders within this type of society and not get caught. Due to the fact that American Psycho is narrated by Patrick Bateman, the events are narrated through his subjective --and therefore, "doubt-filled"-- point of view. However, the fact that the serial killer doubts his own crimes, and that the way the film is narrated transmits this doubt, does not signify that the crimes did not exist. Simply put, Patrick Bateman --the serial killer-- does not cease to exist simply because the others do not react to his existence nor to his actions. Patrick Bateman did commit the murders. Patrick Bateman is defined as a serial killer whose psychosis will remain unchanged, untouched and undefined by the society that is deaf, blind and detached enough to perpetuate his lack of identity. Toward the end of American Psycho, Patrick Bateman refers to the others' lack of reaction as he narrates his conclusive realization that "there is no catharsis... no punishment." He continues, "I gain no deeper knowledge of myself." These powerful statements accurately reflect the Sartrean notion that one's perception of one's identity, one's actions, and even one's existence is defined by the Others' perception of oneself. Therefore, the ambiguities of what is real and what is fantasy, which are established by the Others' lack of reaction, do not conclude that Patrick Bateman did not commit the murders; instead, they prove that due to the Others' lack of reaction, Patrick Bateman doubts his own identity, his actions, and even his existence. Thus, Patrick resolves: "I simply am not there." This carries the Sartrean notion further, in that the lack of the Others' reaction to oneself and one's actions does not render one's self nor one's actions nonexistent. Rather, the Others' definition of oneself influence one's perceptions and one's way of defining oneself. In Patrick Bateman's case, his perception of himself is the direct result of the Others' definition of Patrick Bateman. Yet the Others' offer no definition of Patrick Bateman which would differentiate him from the other cookie-cutter males. (This is either due to the Others' indifference or to their incapacity to distinguish between the cookie-cutter males.) Patrick Bateman has no real perception or definition of himself, and the Others' lack of reaction produce his lack of identity. Patrick Bateman's lack of identity and his constant drive to capture a definition of himself (a definition which the camera does capture by creating visual portraits of Patrick-Bateman-the-murderer) enables the character to feel compelled to kill and destroy others. Thus, as a serial killer, Patrick Bateman is able to constantly reinforce his own perception of his empty, emotionless self through the repeated anihilation of the Others' --that is, of his victims'-- identities. An American psycho who personifies the notably American phenomenon of serial killing by embodying the undying symptoms of a society that "simply is not there," Patrick Bateman will probably live forever.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PimpDaddy: i'd like to read the book.... anyone know where i can get a txt copy of it??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you can pick it up at your local bookstore. if they don't have it in, get them to order it; they'll order in anything, even the anarchists cookbook
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by loki: yeah, the movie was kinda gory, but did you read the book? now THAT'S a treat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't read the book, but I read some reviews of it and the consensus is that it's as intellectually engaging as it's gut-wrenchingly graphic. The murder of the homeless man in particular was described with so much detail that it almost read like a medical text. Everything about it is more graphic, and the attempt to convey some of the more outrageous scenes won the original cut of American Psycho the dreaded NC-17 rating. Editing brought it back to an "R". Lots of protest and controversy surrounding the book, epsecially by women's groups. Their point is understandable. The misogyny in the book is unspeakably brutal. Sweet dreams.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by loki: you can pick it up at your local bookstore. if they don't have it in, get them to order it; they'll order in anything, even the anarchists cookbook<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not a rare book. Last I checked, they had dozens on display, like it was a new Richard Simmons book.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skully: Didn't read the book, but I read some reviews of it and the consensus is that it's as intellectually engaging as it's gut-wrenchingly graphic. The murder of the homeless man in particular was described with so much detail that it almost read like a medical text. Everything about it is more graphic, and the attempt to convey some of the more outrageous scenes won the original cut of American Psycho the dreaded NC-17 rating. Editing brought it back to an "R". Lots of protest and controversy surrounding the book, epsecially by women's groups. Their point is understandable. The misogyny in the book is unspeakably brutal. Sweet dreams.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> the part with the homeless man, while thorough, was by far less bothersome then the part where he stuck a starved rat up a girls cunt or when he ate some chick's intestines.....makes me think of munging....
Everyone is gonna call me a sick bastard for this,but I laughed my ass off when he came back in from the revolving doors to shoot the janitor.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PimpDaddy: yes i know.. i got my local bookstore to order me pihkal, and the sequel, tihkal, by alexander shulgin..... but that wasn't my point... i want a txt copy i can download for free,nada,gratis... i'd rather not pay for the book.... if i don't find a free downloadable copy somewhere i guess i'll bite the bullet and buy it.. or get onea my crack-monkies to steal me a copy.... but i don't wanna read it THAT much yet.... i'm still re-reading hannibal, while watching the vcd, while checking whats been changed.... (quite a lot as it happens)... hannibal... my verdict.. movie .. ok/good book .. excellent..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jesus, Pimp, spring the five bucks and buy a copy at the bookstore! I'd hate to be your kid - probably dress 'em up in garbage bags!
I'm bored with this fucking topic. Not only do I have to wait twice as long for the fucking thread to load, its turned into another war post. Can someone spare us the humanity and end this fucking thread?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cheezedawg: I'm bored with this fucking topic. Not only do I have to wait twice as long for the fucking thread to load, its turned into another war post. Can someone spare us the humanity and end this fucking thread? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who's at war?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skully: I'd hate to be your kid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes you would.... you'd still have a foreskin, i'd beat you everyday, smash up your calculator and de-bead your abacus..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cheezedawg: I'm bored with this fucking topic. Not only do I have to wait twice as long for the fucking thread to load, its turned into another war post. Can someone spare us the humanity and end this fucking thread? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> shit... and there's me thinking it was a thread about serial killers, in fact and fiction... war eh? what is it good for? remember cheesedawg... nothing sacred... no-one spared..... so i'm sorry.. this thread will have to run to it's natural end... as always
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PimpDaddy: yes you would.... you'd still have a foreskin, i'd beat you everyday, smash up your calculator and de-bead your abacus.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! The horror...the horror....
there's nothing wrong with having a foreskin. in mexico, they dont circumsize the babies after their born. The parent or guy has to request it.
