Paranoid schizophrenic?

[Errata]

There is an interesting meta-study that considered the factors that cause individuals to become serial killers. The tentative conclusion was that, in at least some cases, evidence suggests a complex interplay between neurodevelopment problems such as Autistic Spectrum Disorders, i.e. Aspergers syndrome, or head trauma, and psychosocial factors: Alley et al., 2014 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...59178914000305.

Thus, the study determined that more than 10% of serial killers have ASD and a similar proportion have a had injury, and that these figures are likely to be an underestimate; they are also far higher ratios than for the general population. Moreover, the great majority of those with ASD or head injury also experienced psychosocial risk factors, such as parental divorce, physical and sexual abuse, and major surgery during childhood.

A good example is Jeffrey Dahmer, who is highly likely to have had ASD, but who was also subjected to psyhcosocial stressors during childhood: he experienced a highly dysfunctional family environment.

Yeah, that's the studying I was really trying to avoid. The ASD component may be really overblown. The compilers of this information did not interact with most of these patients. They got the brain images they requested, and that's it. The brain image they needed for ASD was an FMRI. And no prisons have them, and the prison isn't going to transport a serial killer to a hospital to get one. So these researchers were relying on MRIS. And sometimes you can diagnose ASD from an MRI, the are certain structural deformities that can indicate a problem (can, not do). But it's not the preferred diagnostic tool. They claim that 10% of the 239 serial killers they studied had ASD (So 24 serial killers). They came to this conclusion by trying to identify it on an MRI, and anything in the "possible" range and up they counted. They confirmed all of 6 ASD diagnoses in these 239 serial killers. They cited 24, they confirmed 6, so they confirmed a quarter of their diagnoses, but still published the full theoretical amountamount.

Frankly in order to come up with Autism or anything on the spectrum from images only you need an FMRI, and an MRI, An echo cardiogram or spiral MRI, you need an MRI and X ray of the neck... and even then its a maybe. They only sure way to identify ASD is through psycho social testing. Which they didn't do.

And their head injury research wasn't as rigorous as it could have been, and they may have identified only as little as 50% of the head injuries.

The theory that some sort of psycho social disability is probably present in a statistically significant number of serial killers is a good one. I agree with it. Their science was kinda lousy. And this study has gotten a lot of negative attention for overblown conclusions and clumsy science.

I mean, raise your hand if you want to take this study to a mother of an autistic child based on that kind of evidence gathering.

[Abby Normal]

Hello, Abby.

All I can do is point you to the previous posts in this topic that cover Robert Napper - a paranoid schizophrenic who, after murdering a woman in a public park, calmly walked away from the murder scene and got away with it. This was a murderer with a calculating mind, not just some knife-wielding lunatic. He had been spying on one of his victims when she was having sex with her partner in the living room. After killing her, Napper dragged her body into the living room and put in her sexual pose, and left with a piece of her body as a trophy. As John G pointed out, Napper also had entire maps where he plotted the locations of potential victims, so there was clearly some method to his madness.

If there's one key distinction between Napper and the Ripper, it's that Napper is a more sexually-motivated killer. He was a serial rapist, a voyeur, and left semen at the scene of the crimes. We don't have any evidence that the Ripper had sex with his victims pre or post-mortem. Napper was targeting young, attractive women, the Ripper was mainly targeting middle-aged frumps (with some possible exceptions: Mary Kelly, Frances Coles). Did the Ripper have a particular vendetta against prostitutes, or were they just the easiest female victims he could find?

Let's look at some of the general characteristics of a disorganized killer (by no means are these set in stone):

• White male, any age range; but females are common as well
• Below average intelligence (Edmund Kemper, however, had an IQ of 145)
• The habit of leaving the body at the scene, not bothering to cover up the crime
• May be difficult to catch due to constant relocation
• May have a domineering family member (most notably a parent)
• Uses "blitz" attacks to subdue, as opposed to seduction or sympathy
• Has very few close relationships and is often referred to as the "quiet type"

Now I can't speak to the Ripper's level of intelligence, none of us can. However, we know that the Ripper was performing 'blitz' attacks on victims, strangling them swiftly and effectively before they could make a sound. He makes no effort to hide the bodies, in fact he seems to arrange them into sexually-degrading poses, and he wouldn't have needed to seduce the victims as they were destitute prostitutes desperate for money. They would've been soliciting just about any man they could find.

The 'Double Event' also suggests a disorganized killer. For argument's sake, let's assume Stride was an interruption. Wouldn't a more organized mind count himself lucky and lay low until he can plan his next strike? Instead, the killer heads towards Mitre Square, bumps into another potential victim, and on an impulse ends up murdering her, even though he's already had one close call that night. He just couldn't help himself.

Hi Harry

All I can do is point you to the previous posts in this topic that cover Robert Napper - a paranoid schizophrenic who, after murdering a woman in a public park, calmly walked away from the murder scene and got away with it. This was a murderer with a calculating mind, not just some knife-wielding lunatic. He had been spying on one of his victims when she was having sex with her partner in the living room. After killing her, Napper dragged her body into the living room and put in her sexual pose, and left with a piece of her body as a trophy. As John G pointed out, Napper also had entire maps where he plotted the locations of potential victims, so there was clearly some method to his madness.

I honestly don't know much about Naper, but I would think he sounds like more of a "mixed" type between organized and disorganized. Calculating and planning-organized. No use of ruse, scene of crime same as where he finds the victim and leaves the body, blitz attack-disorganized.
Also, did his mental illness manifest itself in his physical appearance? did he look odd, act odd to people who knew him?
Did he leave other clues, other than his semen, at the crime scenes?

If there's one key distinction between Napper and the Ripper, it's that Napper is a more sexually-motivated killer. He was a serial rapist, a voyeur, and left semen at the scene of the crimes. We don't have any evidence that the Ripper had sex with his victims pre or post-mortem. Napper was targeting young, attractive women, the Ripper was mainly targeting middle-aged frumps (with some possible exceptions: Mary Kelly, Frances Coles). Did the Ripper have a particular vendetta against prostitutes, or were they just the easiest female victims he could find?

Im not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Let's look at some of the general characteristics of a disorganized killer (by no means are these set in stone):

• White male, any age range; but females are common as well
• Below average intelligence (Edmund Kemper, however, had an IQ of 145)
• The habit of leaving the body at the scene, not bothering to cover up the crime
• May be difficult to catch due to constant relocation
• May have a domineering family member (most notably a parent)
• Uses "blitz" attacks to subdue, as opposed to seduction or sympathy
• Has very few close relationships and is often referred to as the "quiet type"

Kemper was most certainly NOT a disorganized type killer.
Didn't Napper have the habit of leaving the body at the scene?
Didn't Napper use blitz attacks? The ripper only used a blitz style attack once he had the victim where he wanted them-after he was able to convince them he was normal and to lead him to a secluded spot.

Now I can't speak to the Ripper's level of intelligence, none of us can. However, we know that the Ripper was performing 'blitz' attacks on victims, strangling them swiftly and effectively before they could make a sound. He makes no effort to hide the bodies, in fact he seems to arrange them into sexually-degrading poses, and he wouldn't have needed to seduce the victims as they were destitute prostitutes desperate for money. They would've been soliciting just about any man they could find.

He cant hide the bodies because in an era without cars there is no mobile bolt hole for him to use. Plus he really dosnt need to hide the bodies since all he needs to do is achieve his goal, not leave any clues and just get out of there as quickly as possible.

He didn't need to seduce them, but he did have to ruse them. And I would posit that eventhough all the victims were prostitutes, or sometime prostitutes, not all were even actually prostituting themselves and/or extremely destitute. Chapman and Nichols I admit were in desperate immediate need but not the rest.

The 'Double Event' also suggests a disorganized killer. For argument's sake, let's assume Stride was an interruption. Wouldn't a more organized mind count himself lucky and lay low until he can plan his next strike? Instead, the killer heads towards Mitre Square, bumps into another potential victim, and on an impulse ends up murdering her, even though he's already had one close call that night. He just couldn't help himself.

[/QUOTE]

To me the double event is one of the biggest factors pointing to an organized killer:


The witnesses describe a peaked cap man over a length of time with stride, perhaps buying her things, walking about. This is a prolonged ruse.

Able to be perceptive enough to barely getting caught red handed and still being able to slip away.

Lawende and co describe Eddowes and suspect quietly talking, her hand gently on his chest. He is able to go from almost getting caught to ruse mode quickly. Amazing to me.

And if you believe he wrote the GSG, which almost certainly did, we have someone who is quick on there feet, can plan quickly and who apparently enjoys a cat and mouse game.

Not the characteristics of a disorganized/schizophrenic mind.

[harry]

Errata,
Thanks for your reply.I do not fully grasp the medical terms you use,so I have to keep to a very simplistic telling,as the medical specialists had to communicate to me.The malformation is what is commonly called birth mark
or port wine stain.The prominent red marks one sometimes sees on people.Mine was located inside the skull,and connected to the main artery.It was presumed to have a steal effect,that is it deprived the brain of blood.In consequence,the mental process was affected.an alternate state of conciousness ensued. The brain itself was normal.Pretty much the same as happens to a healthy heart when a vein become partially blocked.The heart cannot function properly.In both cases,there need be no disease present.

I became aware of my problem in the 1970's Little was known of cause and effect then. Would have been even less in 1888.I became aware that something might be wrong w hen stopped by a police officer over a traffic offence, sought medical advice,and had the problem corrected.

W ould a killer who knew he had killed but didn't know why,hav e sought such advice then..Now I am not claiming my problem was his problem,or that my complaint would lead to such violent behaviour ,but can it be ruled out.Certainly a killer was operating in 1888,and living an otherwise normal life,devoid of suspicion.or so it appears.There had to be some cause.

[Errata]

Errata,
Thanks for your reply.I do not fully grasp the medical terms you use,so I have to keep to a very simplistic telling,as the medical specialists had to communicate to me.The malformation is what is commonly called birth mark
or port wine stain.The prominent red marks one sometimes sees on people.Mine was located inside the skull,and connected to the main artery.It was presumed to have a steal effect,that is it deprived the brain of blood.In consequence,the mental process was affected.an alternate state of conciousness ensued. The brain itself was normal.Pretty much the same as happens to a healthy heart when a vein become partially blocked.The heart cannot function properly.In both cases,there need be no disease present.

I became aware of my problem in the 1970's Little was known of cause and effect then. Would have been even less in 1888.I became aware that something might be wrong w hen stopped by a police officer over a traffic offence, sought medical advice,and had the problem corrected.

W ould a killer who knew he had killed but didn't know why,hav e sought such advice then..Now I am not claiming my problem was his problem,or that my complaint would lead to such violent behaviour ,but can it be ruled out.Certainly a killer was operating in 1888,and living an otherwise normal life,devoid of suspicion.or so it appears.There had to be some cause.

It cannot be ruled out as a cause, but the idea that there has to be a cause is a little faulty. I mean, most people don't understand why someone with a wife, a good job, etc. would become a serial killer. But they don't. They were a serial killer first. Many start going downhill as early as 5, sometimes up to 15. And they learn to hide it early. They grow up, they know they are different. They know they want things other people don't want. And all of them can be normal, for a while. Maybe 6 months at a time, maybe 20 years or more. They can do it. And some do it their whole lives and never kill. We will never know how many. But it's thought most don't make it. A man with a family and good life kills because he is a serial killer. He was before he married, he likely was before he left school. Serial killers kill because they are serial killers, though most killers are not serial killers. Alcoholics drink because they are alcoholics, though most drinkers are not alcoholics. And for a lot of the same reasons and mechanisms.

But as for your scenario, would someone who knew he killed but not why seek help, that depends on a lot. Certainly his options for help were grim. Jail or an asylum. But if he might go to the church, especially if confession was a big part of his religious makeup. If there is some kind of pattern that dictates this problem, he might try to fix it himself. Diet can affect vital systems and blood pressure, and that was known so he might try different things to fix it. He might lock himself in when he thinks it's going to happen, but he would have to be pretty attuned to the early symptoms whatever they were. But a lot of this assume that there is no damage from the underlying cause of this problem, and that may be asking a lot. Repeated deprivation of blood kills tissue. So if he is brain damaged from this, then depending on what part was damaged could determine whether he even cared that he was killing for no reason. But if his inhibitions were affected, he may be acting on subconscious desires or motives. Or base urges.

But if a man is killing people, and he knows he is killing people, and he does not do everything humanly possible to stop doing that, including jail and asylums, does it matter that there is something in his head? Sort of how if an ass hole gets drunk and says something mean, is it the alcohol, or is it the fact that he's an ass hole? Is quitting drinking really going to keep that from happening again?

[John Wheat]

To John G

The study you're looking at seems extremely flawed. It seems to contain the usual ASD bashing that you get from some quarters.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Yeah, that's the studying I was really trying to avoid. The ASD component may be really overblown...

The theory that some sort of psycho social disability is probably present in a statistically significant number of serial killers is a good one. I agree with it. Their science was kinda lousy. And this study has gotten a lot of negative attention for overblown conclusions and clumsy science...

I mean, raise your hand if you want to take this study to a mother of an autistic child based on that kind of evidence gathering.

To Errata

Interesting comments. Exactly what do you mean by psycho social disability?

Cheers John

[harry]

Errata,
Thank you for your views.My own conclusion about cause and effect,is that in the case of the Ripper,the killings and mutilations were of such abnormal behaviour,that I believe there had to be a cause.I can say nothing more than that.

[Errata]

To Errata

Interesting comments. Exactly what do you mean by psycho social disability?

Cheers John

It's not really an actual subcategory you're going to find in a textbook, at least not last I checked, but it is a useful term.

I talked about it in terms of testing. So if you have someone you can't really figure out, you give them a battery of tests. The MMPI (which has a hilarious foundation but is still popular), IQ tests, socialization tests, the Rorschach, spatial sense testing... it a lot. It like 5 days worth. And it's dull as crap, so results are not always as clear as some might like.

So someone with autism might score low on an IQ test. Not because they are stupid, but because the test is biased against certain types, ASD being one of them (black people being another until 1998 we hope). It gets thrown out if the patient does have a diagnosis that create bias. They will likely show up as ASD with the MMPI, but may need assistance to take the test because its an "always sometimes maybe rarely never" test with bubbles to fill in. And it's a little hard for the testee to keep track of the endless Scan Tron sheet with all the bubbles, and there are sections and questions they tell you to skip... it's kind of a mess. Most people with ASD flunk the socialization tests. Even those with Aspergers don't do well because they trust too much and over share. Not maintaining eye contact gets points taken off, not responding to social cues... basically what two boring average people would do is 100, and anything other than that starts costing you. It's a test that also draws out victims of physical or sexual abuse, and when that occurs in someone with ASD the social damage can be catastrophic, and some irreversible. I mean when it boils down to it, someone with ASD going through the testing the way I did, it's going to be a train wreck. But in a way that's good, because almost nothing else causes people so much trouble in the testing. I mean, people go through testing high as crap and still do okay. They aren't going to get their problems solved but thy aren't going to flunk everything. So it gets a diagnosis, which is the point. Now someone with a known diagnosis goes through a different procedure to determine what the problem areas are, what the "ins" are, etc. And it's a gentler process designed to not frustrate or confound. Because they already know what happens when the person is frustrated or confounded, so they don't need to trigger that.

You put Ted Bundy through the same testing, the before he was caught Ted Bundy, and he would breeze through the testing. He knew what normal was supposed to be an arguably was the one best at faking it. There would probably be some concerning ticks on the MMPI because there are trick questions and testing questions. He would miss some and that might raise an eyebrow. He would do fine on the IQ test. The socialization tests would be off. Probably really off. But they don't test for psychopathy directly. That's a conclusion that the tester has to come to, and he could charm his way through the bumps. It would be on record that there were problems, but those problems could be explained away by a doctor who doesn't see it. I'm sure he would pass the spatial sense testing, and he would deliberately flub the Rorschach. He'd laugh through it and make jokes and eventually the tester would give up. Nobody knows what the right answers are on a Rorschach. If it looks like a butterfly and you say it's a butterfly, then that's fine. If it looks like two men fighting and you say it's a butterfly, big red flag. But for all you know saying it's two men fighting is also a red flag. It's a weird test, but mostly because it doesn't test what you think it tests.

Ted Bundy a year or two before he died (after he stopped hiding) would have lit up the MMPI. He would have scored high in several disorders. His IQ test still would have been fine, but his socialization test alone would have gotten him under an immediate 72 hour hold. And if that had happened when he was a child, they would have done it because they would have assumed that the results were from profound ongoing abuse and the hold would have been to protect him. I've seen those tapes. It is clear that he does not know how to be or to interact with a human. And his Rorschach would just be nonsensical.

The odd thing is that his spatial sense would have had some confusion as well, though it would have been fine when he was testing while still pretending. Handedness is a confusing issue and it's part of spatial sense. What foot do you step off of, what hand do you protect yourself with, what hand do you point to yourself with, where do you point at yourself. All of this is about spatial sense, which is both physical and psychological, it is an indicator test for other problems including brain tumors and stroke, and it is socially enforced. All those years people were forced to write with their right hand? yeah. But also a lot of this stuff is learned through observation. We learn to walk through observation. We learn gestures through observation. We are also trained. If you always get hit from the right you are going to block with your right. Most serial killers tend to be completely non intuitive and almost exclusively observational. They don't figure stuff out themselves. They watch and learn. It's not peculiar to serial killers, but it's a trend. That shows up on this test. And when he's not pretending, he will show something called right-left confusion. I have it. It from mixing intuitive action and learned action, despite the fact that the movements are not initially natural. I write with my right hand, I step off with my right foot. It should be the left foot. I protect myself with my left arm, but when using both arms I shield my left arm with my right. Which shouldn't happen in a right handed person. It's not a problem. But it indicates that somewhere along the line my development was sidetracked and instead of figuring out natural movements for me I just copied other people. Which I did. Which most serial killers do. It's physical, but it's social. It too can be a strong indicator of abuse. Now I can do it correctly, as could Ted Bundy. But it's like putting on a show. If I pretend I'm a proper lady or whatever I can do it. But mostly I don't bother.

So anyone with an inability to connect to people is going to be frustrated, lonely, even angry. It shuts people down. It makes them untrusting and eventually uninterested in humans. And that happens with the more severe forms of ASD. It happens to a lesser extent with any form of ASD. Or any mental disorder that disrupts socialization, Any mental disorder can do it to a child. Childhood onset anything is crippling to a person. And it's a lifelong struggle to catch up and never quite getting there.

You can imagine that kind of constant beating to the heart and the ego can make people angry and cruel. It can depersonalize them to the point that people are prey. And it does happen, because several serial killers have described that very thing. I'm not saying that those with ASD are serial killers. Though there is no reason to completely exclude someone with ASD ever becoming a serial killer. But some of the issues are the same. The social battering.

So that's what I mean.

[John Wheat]

To Errata

Thanks for your detailed reply I now have a better understanding of pyscho social disability.

Cheers John

[Ausgirl]

I should note that another condition that can cause a dissociative state is PTSD, a condition sometimes misdiagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia: see Berger et al., 2012. http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/4/509.full.pdf. I believe Arthur Shawcross, who also mutilated some of his victims, attempted to raise this as an insanity defence, and one psychiatrist diagnosed him with the condition. However, this argument was rejected by the court, after being strongly challenged by the prosecution: their psychiatrist diagnosed him with antisocial personality disorder.

I have PTSD, have had it for the majority of my life. So long, I don't know how to be any different, and as I live a pretty good life in general and it doesn't manifest in ways that bug other people I'm not inclined to become any different. But I do know a bit about what it's like to live that way.

I think when PTSD is raised as a murder defense, it's often in conjunction with dissociative disorders (which I also had as a young person and don't have now).

Here's what I think about that: Nope.

PTSD/DID is not a psychotic break. I've accidentally lashed out at a couple of people who startled me in the dark, but that's not reaching for a meat cleaver and doing them in. In other words, you'd have to have the general mindset of a killer to kill people, even in a dissociative state.

I see all those "multiple personality" and "PTSD" defenses as pure BS, lawyers or killers pushing for an easy sentence/deal. And oddly enough, I am yet to see anyone in jail for multiple murders have their 'diagnosis' stand up to scrutiny.

That said, trauma can affect people very badly, all their lives and in ways that aren't as easy to live with as mine. But as is the case with Asperger's (low functioning autism is a bit different, I think) there has to a pile of other stuff going on, for someone to commit a murder. Let alone a series of them.

And PTSD isn't "insanity". It just is not.

[John Wheat]

But as is the case with Asperger's (low functioning autism is a bit different, I think) there has to a pile of other stuff going on, for someone to commit a murder. Let alone a series of them.

To Ausgirl

I would say someone with low functioning Autism is no more likely or less likely to commit murder than someone with Asperger's Syndrome. I would comment though that it would be less likely for someone with low functioning Autism to commit a series of murders as they may not even be able to conceive of such a thing.

Cheers John

[Errata]

I think everyone can agree that whole pile of stuff has to be wrong for anyone to become a serial killer. Be they ASD, PTSD, abused, neglected, female, Presbyterian, whatever. It's not a problem with a single genesis. Even if they do it because "they just want to", there's a lot of things that had to gone wrong in order for them to want to. Certain conditions are highly unlikely to translate into serial killing, others may occur more. And sometimes they are concurrent with out being causally related. It's something of a cascade failure of a lot of systems.

[John Wheat]

Well said Errata.

Cheers John

[John G]

I have PTSD, have had it for the majority of my life. So long, I don't know how to be any different, and as I live a pretty good life in general and it doesn't manifest in ways that bug other people I'm not inclined to become any different. But I do know a bit about what it's like to live that way.

I think when PTSD is raised as a murder defense, it's often in conjunction with dissociative disorders (which I also had as a young person and don't have now).

Here's what I think about that: Nope.

PTSD/DID is not a psychotic break. I've accidentally lashed out at a couple of people who startled me in the dark, but that's not reaching for a meat cleaver and doing them in. In other words, you'd have to have the general mindset of a killer to kill people, even in a dissociative state.

I see all those "multiple personality" and "PTSD" defenses as pure BS, lawyers or killers pushing for an easy sentence/deal. And oddly enough, I am yet to see anyone in jail for multiple murders have their 'diagnosis' stand up to scrutiny.

That said, trauma can affect people very badly, all their lives and in ways that aren't as easy to live with as mine. But as is the case with Asperger's (low functioning autism is a bit different, I think) there has to a pile of other stuff going on, for someone to commit a murder. Let alone a series of them.

And PTSD isn't "insanity". It just is not.

Hello Ausgirl,

Good post. I have a close relative who has PTSD so I completely agree. It seems to me that the vast majority of serial killers have anti social personality disorders, such as psychopathy or sociopathy. This does not equate to mental illness, and is not recognized as such by the DSM. And such conditions would certainly not allow for an insanity plea, as the behaviour is part of the person's everyday personality. It is basically who they are.

However, it should be pointed out that these types of disorders, which involve a violation of social norms, can affect individuals in very different ways: from serial killers at one end of the spectrum, to people who simply commit bad acts from time to time at the other end. I also believe that many people improve over time. However, anti-social personality disorder remains poorly understood; it has been argued that it is untreatable, but I believe that was on the basis of just one randomized control study, whereas in contrast, there have been numerous studies into mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

[Errata]

Hello Ausgirl,

Good post. I have a close relative who has PTSD so I completely agree. It seems to me that the vast majority of serial killers have anti social personality disorders, such as psychopathy or sociopathy. This does not equate to mental illness, and is not recognized as such by the DSM. And such conditions would certainly not allow for an insanity plea, as the behaviour is part of the person's everyday personality. It is basically who they are.

However, it should be pointed out that these types of disorders, which involve a violation of social norms, can affect individuals in very different ways: from serial killers at one end of the spectrum, to people who simply commit bad acts from time to time at the other end. I also believe that many people improve over time. However, anti-social personality disorder remains poorly understood; it has been argued that it is untreatable, but I believe that was on the basis of just one randomized control study, whereas in contrast, there have been numerous studies into mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

I think that within mental health circles, be they health care providers or sufferers don't have a lot of use for the term "insane". It's not a medical term, it's a legal one. Now we use words like crazy, nuts, wackjob, etc. to describe people who engage in behaviors we don't empathize with or understand. And while it's incredibly hurtful to the person being described that way, and I myself get described that way, it is a valid social judgement. Not a nice one, but a valid one. But it's incredibly subjective.

A guy who kills his wife and child is crazy. That's just insane. I don't understand that decision. Nobody does... until they try.

Chris Benoit the wrestler did exactly that. He killed his wife and child, then killed himself. Bound and strangled his wife, suffocated his young son and hanged himself. And no one knows why. So he can't be anything other than crazy, because the motive is lost to us. There's nothing we can relate to. Some crazy bastard. But they talked about his anabolic steroid use, debated the reasons for doing that to himself. And they called it an act of Roid Rage. Well now he's not crazy, he's high. We aren't baffled anymore. We are angry. How dare this man jeopardize his family like that just to win some fake fights? But we dig a little deeper and we find out that he was training under his pro wrestling hero at 15. And his steroid use started before finishing high school. Now it's harder to be angry because it's hard to picture that this practice was not endorsed by those who were supposed to be taking care of him.

And then his autopsy comes back, and his brain is wrecked. It's described s the brain of a 70 year old Alzheimer patient. He had massive scarring in his brain, and he'd had so many concussions that he had build up about a quarter inch of scar tissue on his dura. His brain was so scarred from concussions that he had lost the plasticity his meningeal sac needed to prevent further damage. His frontal lobe looked riddled with tumors, but it was scarring. He had scarring surrounding both inner ears. What kind of idiot continues an activity that his damaging his brain like that? The kind of idiot who is never once told that any of these injuries could be permanent or could affect his functioning. He never saw his scans. Most people never do.

He didn't know. He didn't know how profoundly damaged he was because he wasn't told. And for the longest time nobody knew. But then we did, and athletes found out about it, and got concerned about it, and the only sure way to keep them on the field or in the ring was to lie to them. Tell they will be fine. Make sure they don't see an independent doctor. And as it happened, he had no steroids in his system when he died.

So we still don't know why he did it. He gave his child a xanax and waited for him to fall asleep before he smothered him. Not the act of a raving maniac. Nor particularly the act of a calculating psychopath. So what is he? Is he crazy, end of story? Is he a man whose physical problems heightened his personal demons? Is he a pawn of a sport or a conspiracy or an ignorance that destroyed him and his family? Is he too a victim?

And we are never going to know. But when you first read about the crime, hes a raving lunatic, an animal. And after you read about all the circumstances, maybe you don't feel bad for him, but he isn't crazy anymore. He's a man again, one who did something terrible but possibly not because he actually wanted to.

We're all people with chances we didn't take, with limitations, foibles, quirks. Some people have a diagnosis. Most don't. But if we say someone is insane, what we are saying is that we have nothing to learn from them. Insanity is a locked door. Someone gets that label, nobody ever really listens to them ever again. They aren't human anymore. They are bear in a cage. But we need to listen. We listen to the story of Christ Benoit and maybe we don't change our mind, but we start to think about things like "Gee, do I really want my kid playing football if this could be the result?" Aurora Colorado listened to James Holmes, listened to how he did everything we ask mentally ill people to do, and there was no one there to help. They've tightened their network so now when someone reports themselves as dangerous, they get a consult, they get a bed. What happened to Homes won't happen again. And I don't think the Ripper is crazy, but he tells me that for 130 years, we have been so disgusted by prostitutes as a society that we let them be murdered. All the time. We aren't disgusted with johns, or prostitution as an institution, just the women who do it. And that's disgusting.

My big thing is, once yo throw out that label, you have shut the door. But we can't get better as a people if we shut that door. So if someone wants to call me insane, they are hurting themselves more than they are hurting me.