My Serial Killer Theory :)

[Errata]

Errata, Kemper -was- on his best behaviour in the hospital, he was made an orderly, and assisted with officework. It's late and I can't be bothered digging it up now, but there's mention this earned him a level of trust and regard with the staff which in turn helped him at time of release. I will find it, next I'm on.

Oh and I didn't count Dahmer as a postmortem mutilator in that particular instance, because he mutilated people while still alive, this is certain, whereas its generally believed the others did most of their 'sadistic' mutilation after death. Which is not to say they weren't sadistic, at all. Just not in that particular degree.

-----------

I'm sure he was on his best behavior. Wouldn't you be? One of his jobs in the hospital was to assist one of the doctors, and he was clearly bright enough to excel at his job. And people did and do like the guy. Some biographies say he manipulated everyone to let him out. But more than half of the doctors at the hospital opposed his release, so obviously the manipulation story wasn't entirely true.

He had an administrative parole. His time was up, he was going. And because he hadn't hurt anyone in the hospital, there was no mechanism to keep him. Still isn't one in most states. He was going to be released unless he posed an imminent threat to himself or others. Since there had been no violence since the murders that put him there, they could not keep him. Even if every single member of the staff knew he was going to kill again, it wouldn't have mattered. Just like if a guy gets released from prison after 20 years, and you know he's going to kill again, you can't keep him in jail. He served his time. The only reason Kemper got "paroled" instead of released is because nobody declared unfit can be released free and clear. Which I have issues with on a personal level but neither here nor there. Nobody who ever left that hospital was "released". They were all paroled, they were all required to follow up with a doctor for a certain amount of time before they were clear. Which Kemper did.

[Ausgirl]

Another common component to the early lives of all these four men is bullying.

Dupas had few friends at school. He was a 'soft' kid, overweight and a bit weird, which made him a prime target for merciless bullying.

Damher had a core group of friends, who thought him odd but in an acceptable way. Others bullied him, his friends mention this frequently.

Percy was also bullied, first about his lack of interest/ban from sports, then moreso after he was caught outdoors wearing stolen lingerie by some fellow students.

Kemper was bullied due to his height. This comes from Kemper, as well, and I don't have nay backup for that, but all the really tall kids I know were teased about it, and were targets for aggressive idiots, so I'm thinking it's probably not a lie.

I can't find any instances of overt aggression in the schoolground for any of these men, despite that they were all soon ro become (or already were..) sociopaths and murderers. Instead, it's they who are the victims.

I find this interesting. And I wonder how those daily, innumerable wounds to their egos contributed to their later behaviour, if at all.


-------------

Errata, Kemper -was- on his best behaviour in the hospital, he was made an orderly, and assisted with officework. It's late and I can't be bothered digging it up now, but there's mention this earned him a level of trust and regard with the staff which in turn helped him at time of release. I will find it, next I'm on.

Oh and I didn't count Dahmer as a postmortem mutilator in that particular instance, because he mutilated people while still alive, this is certain, whereas its generally believed the others did most of their 'sadistic' mutilation after death. Which is not to say they weren't sadistic, at all. Just not in that particular degree.

-----------

[Errata]

Well said Pcdunn, I also read that book and that is where I got the 4% from. A terrific, if not scary, read.

If you look up the work of Kevin Dutton you'll be shocked to learn that he purports many advantages to being a psychopath and has written a book about their wisdom...

This gave me a whole new perspective that I, quite frankly, find disturbing...

These people are everywhere and this idea opens up a whole new can of worms...


Greg

Like everything there is a scale that we all fall on. Some of us just hit a little higher than others.

Dr. Stout did a lot of fine research, but the 4% number is very soft. Some research indicates that it's as high as 20%. Some says it as low as .01%. The truth is we have no idea. We see sociopathy as a binary state. And it isn't. There is a scale. And we know there's a scale, but we still tend to think that anyone who "passes" is a sociopath, and those who don't are not. It is possible that the sociopaths who are so high on the scale that their brain is rewired are in the .01%. And that 20% of the population scores slightly above "normal" on the test. I've never seen the actual research so I don't know what they are measuring.

I have a "friend" whose sociopathy is so severe he is considered a "null". He pretty much doesn't feel anything other than anger and amusement. I amuse him. Better than the alternative. He's not law abiding, but he's not violent. He doesn't experience anger enough to lose perspective that hurting someone will land him in jail. He's a cool guy I gotta say. If I ever need an honest opinion, I ask him. He's not mean. He doesn't get pleasure from hurting people. He's just not afraid to lose someone either. He sees all relationships as an exchange of benefits. Which they are. He has never made a bad business decision. It's uncanny. We've been on the outs, we make up. He's never threatened me, and I've never been afraid of him. I've been afraid FOR him more than once when his adventures in crime have gotten beyond what I considered acceptable.

And I had to explain to him that there are places he can steal from that I'm okay with, and places I'm not okay with. He doesn't understand why I laugh when he rips off Wal Mart, but get pissed off when he takes his neighbors packages. It's the same to him. And I've learned over the years how to present an argument, because "wrong" doesn't play with him. I have to tell him that if he steals from his neighbor and she finds out, she's going to be angry at him, and that will make his life difficult, but if he steals from Wal Mart, no one will be angry, so no one will be personally gunning for him. But he knows that's not why I'm mad, so I have to explain to him that I hate Wal Mart, but his neighbor is a nice old lady. He accepts my first argument, but requires my second so he knows what makes me mad.

It's not all serial killers and dictators. A lot of these guys are just living normal lives. Even being a sociopath or a psychopath does not predict a serial killer. There is literally nothing where we can say "If someone is (blank) then they are a serial killer. Nothing fills in that blank. Except "serial killer". If someone is a serial killer, then they are a serial killer.

We all want to know what makes these guys tick. But know your motives. If you want to find out in order to eliminate it, dangerous ground. Back away slowly.

[Roy Corduroy]

Blaming the parent tells me more about the analyst than anything else.

Nowadays you can get straight A's blaming authority figures - from mumbo jumbo 101 right through to your doctorate.

Roy

[GregBaron]

Here, there and everywhere...

Well said Pcdunn, I also read that book and that is where I got the 4% from. A terrific, if not scary, read.

If you look up the work of Kevin Dutton you'll be shocked to learn that he purports many advantages to being a psychopath and has written a book about their wisdom...

This gave me a whole new perspective that I, quite frankly, find disturbing...

These people are everywhere and this idea opens up a whole new can of worms...


Greg

[Pcdunn]

"Good mothers have borne bad sons"

Yes indeed friends, psychopathy appears to have a genetic component.

Neuroscience has shown many times that psychopathic brains react differently to various stimuli.

There was a terrific article in the New York Times some time back concerning cold, callous children whose parents were at their wit’s end about treatment. These kids had no empathy and couldn’t seem to develop any.

The leader in the Columbine massacre had an ordinary upbringing with decent, if busy, parents. Everyone wanted to blame them. After the kid’s murders and death and the discovery of his writings, his parents admitted he was a psychopath who they didn’t really know at all.

I’m afraid there are bad seeds you all and not only that, it’s been surmised that socio/psychopaths make up 4% of the population and have been selected for by Darwinism because they are advantageous in war and risk situations. Not all are violent of course and these often become our CEO’s and Politicians.

Give that some thought my friends…

Greg

The quote at the title of my post is from Shakespeare, and was left behind by one of the Columbine High School mass murderers as a sort of apology(?) to his parents.

I highly recommend everyone interested in criminal psychology read the book "The Sociopath Next Door", which covers the same information Greg has mentioned above. I found it enlightening to learn that some sociopaths content themselves with petty behavior, such as being bullying bosses, and that not everyone with the condition is a serial killer or rapist.

[Errata]

I don't think we have much to argue about, there.
]
Just to make it clear, though, I am not arguing "one cause" nor "brain abnormalities".

What I'm pointing out is, in the era these men committed their crimes, 'blame the parents' was the default position (and in many ways, it still is). This already biased perception gets backed up by sociopaths looking for an easier time of it, whether getting parole earlier than *never* or just a better time in prison. They're liars, this is something well known and verifiable among all of them, so why have doctors, parole boards and police chosen to believe anything they've said about their childhoods? In the cases of Kemper and Dupas, who both were put away in mental hospitals for teenaged attacks, it worked the frst time, both were released and pronounced cured. Which ofc did not go well...

So my theory is (in part) that this information is very possibly innacurate, so when we look at these men and their motives we are potentially looking at them from the wrong angle, entirely.

Also, that three (disincluding Dahmer) are postmortem mutilators, which are rare. The odds that these men share SO many general behaviours (beside the killing/mutilating) in common, PLUS a background with many points in common, PLUS developing into the rare bird killers they are has to mean *something*.

What that may be, however, is perhaps lost for these current subjects, because of that default 'parents made 'em do it' position, which does not at all seem to have been seriously questioned (and as with Kemper, I think there's every reason to question it) at the time of their arrests, nor since.

Well, it's important to correct one thing at least. Kemper never talked anyone into releasing him. I can't speak to Dupas's experience, but Kemper was not paroled, was not declared sane, he convinced nobody of anything. In truth he did object to being released and to being released into his mother's custody, as did his doctors. It's not that someone believed he was okay. Nobody thought that. He was convicted as a juvenile, and remanded to a state asylum. At 21, every juvenile inmate walked free unless they were demonstrably dangerous. Which he wasn't since he had been well behaved. It was an administrative decision. Nobody really talks about this, but anytime the treating physician, and several other physicians lodge formal objections to an inmate release, and he is released anyway, it's because the release was never their call. Especially when the release coincides with either the patient's 18th birthday or their 21st. It's always either because of the nature of the sentence or because they are cleaning house for more patients. Unless they found him in his cell eating another inmate, he was going to be released. He didn't do anything, his doctors didn't do anything. They thought he was stable enough to make it off the grounds without killing someone. And he was.

He had to check in regularly with psychiatrists as a condition of his release. And within a year or so they judged him to be stable enough to expunge his juvenile records. And he may have been. But you don't have to file for these kinds of things. Some things you do have to file paperwork, but not this. Everyone's Juvenile records are sealed, and his would have been had he not remained in the asylum past his 18th birthday. Completing the requirements of his release automatically granted him the same rights as anyone else, and his records were sealed when the last shrink signed off on him. He may have wanted them expunged, he may not. It was going to happen either way.

Why does Dahmer not count as a post mortem mutilator?

No adult in the history of ever was forced to kill by their parents. Kids have been, and those are some of the sickest cases out there. But all adults have a choice. Gein didn't have a choice, but he would have if he hadn't been developmentally challenged. If a person's parents are horrible, the logical thing would be to get the hell away from them and live well in revenge. The next logical step would be to kill your terrible parent. Certainly the way a child is raised is significant to their development. But no mother beats her kid unless he agrees to murder brunettes and sodomize their rotting orifices. There is not an "a=b" thing. Abuse matters. It doesn't directly translate.

But you're never going to convince people that it isn't the parents fault anymore than you can convince them that people like Bundy and Kemper are perfectly sane. Incredibly maladapted, but sane. When people find something that scares them, they want a quick and easy explanation so they can rule out people they know. "I don't know any crazy people, so I don't know any serial killers" "I didn't abuse my kids, so they won't grow up to be like that, so I'm safe." Which you would think that the AIDS epidemic would have taught them the folly of their ways. How many people got infected because they don't have sex with queers or junkies?

You can't convince these people they are wrong. There's no point in trying. Save the battle for more worthy causes, like convincing them to vaccinate their kid. As much as Lionel Dahmer has gone through, and as much as he would thank you for taking up his cause, even he would rather you convince people that being hipsters doesn't mean their kid won't die from measles.

Hopefully we are all smarter that our epidemic starting hipster friends. We accept a multi causal theory.

But if a serial killer truly believes something that is not true, it doesn't matter if it's not true. The belief does the same damage as the truth. Even if Kemper was just hypersensitive to a panicking mother, if he felt abused, then that's his truth. That's what informed his behavior. Not his mother's perception of events. And that's the important part, at least to people who study behavior. If I want to know why Kemper is the way he is, his mother's truth is of no use to me. It would have mattered to her, but she's not the subject. So a lot of times we have to choose between wanting to know the truth or the reason. If I want the truth, I'd talk to anyone who ever met Kemper. If I want the reason, all I need are his words. A LOT of them, maybe all of them. And descriptions of behavior would be good. But I don't need someone else's version of the truth. It's not that the truth isn't important. It just isn't important to me.

[Ausgirl]

I don't think we have much to argue about, there.
]
Just to make it clear, though, I am not arguing "one cause" nor "brain abnormalities".

What I'm pointing out is, in the era these men committed their crimes, 'blame the parents' was the default position (and in many ways, it still is). This already biased perception gets backed up by sociopaths looking for an easier time of it, whether getting parole earlier than *never* or just a better time in prison. They're liars, this is something well known and verifiable among all of them, so why have doctors, parole boards and police chosen to believe anything they've said about their childhoods? In the cases of Kemper and Dupas, who both were put away in mental hospitals for teenaged attacks, it worked the frst time, both were released and pronounced cured. Which ofc did not go well...

So my theory is (in part) that this information is very possibly innacurate, so when we look at these men and their motives we are potentially looking at them from the wrong angle, entirely.

Also, that three (disincluding Dahmer) are postmortem mutilators, which are rare. The odds that these men share SO many general behaviours (beside the killing/mutilating) in common, PLUS a background with many points in common, PLUS developing into the rare bird killers they are has to mean *something*.

What that may be, however, is perhaps lost for these current subjects, because of that default 'parents made 'em do it' position, which does not at all seem to have been seriously questioned (and as with Kemper, I think there's every reason to question it) at the time of their arrests, nor since.

[Errata]

Sorry Errata, re grandma, but I still fail to see anything that suggests she had a "severe personality disorder". Clarnell - well, maybe, if it's possible to hide it from your coworkers at work every day (and I am not being snide, it may well be possible).

I'd still like to see evidence of it coming originally from anywhere but Kemper's mouth though. I see nothing for grandma, except a desire to make him quit shooting birds and removal of the gun. As for grandpa... well, all that comes out of Kemper's mouth yet again doesn't it.

You cannot hide a personality disorder, but we don't judge coworkers the way we judge family. And of course, there are things that people don't say of the dead. If she was BPD, she would also have been like that at work. But at work it translates into sighing when you know she is coming over to talk to you because she is just SO needy. It's all about her, little problems are a BIG deal, she is completely uninterested in solutions, she is constantly seeking praise. It makes her an annoying conversationalist, and god forbid you get stuck in an elevator with her, but she's not mean to you. She might be mean about others which makes you suspect she's mean about you to other people, but she's essentially like a 13 year old girl. She's certainly not verbally abusing her coworkers. She'd be fired. And her coworkers wouldn't be her targets anyway. They can feed her needs. So when this woman gets horribly murdered by her own son, her coworkers who likely have no idea whats happening in the home are going to talk about how she was a nice lady, good worker. They are not going to bring up the feeling of dread they felt when cornered into a conversation about how terrible it is for her, especially when she's not looking for input. The phrase "drama queen" had not yet been coined. And they certainly aren't going to posit that maybe she had a personality disorder that didn't exist and they'd never heard of.

As for his grandparents, I see something there. His grandmother was authoritarian, which in and of itself means nothing. But she was sort of Southern Grand Dame authoritarian, and her husband was submissive. Which in Alabama or among New York Jews is perfectly normal. But it is not normal for her culture, her religion, her background. Though her mother was described as dominant as well. It's complicated. What it boils down to for me is was her personality harmful to herself or others. Did others have to compromise in order to protect her world view. And in my opinion they did. And that points to dysfunction. It's my opinion. Other people have the same opinion, but it's certainly not something proven. I certainly don't require you to believe it, I only ever look at it in terms of what is nature and what is nurture.

And there's also a good chance that a majority of that reason existed nowhere outside of Kemper's head.

Possible, but when we have police backing up the story using different words, it implies they got the information from somewhere else. Just implies. But there is a whole system of deriving facts and opinions from language use that is really interesting. It sort of defines why we believe some people and not others... I still remember some of it from that job.

I have known two young men in my lifetime who have hated their mothers with a passion, yet relied on them because their mothers cleaned up after them, figuratively and literally. They are both nice women, if often exhausted and overwhelmed. They are both often afraid of - and for- their sons. They both refuse to give up on pushing these boys into taking responsibility for themselves. Basic things, like picking up clothes, getting up on time for classes or work, mowing the yard, become literal wars where violence can escalate quickly. If the police are called, the boys are suddenly calm and contrite. One of them in particular will then spend weeks 'punishing' his mother by knocking holes in the wall of their rented home, breaking windows, passive aggressive "accidents' incurring costs of repair she can't afford, and giving her the silent treatment unless he wants something. Both boys have friends, most of whom are uncomfortable with the way these mothers are regarded and treated by their sons -- who call them "nags" and other not very nice things.

Some of their acts toward their mothers that I have heard about are sheerly revolting, putting nasty things in their food and drink and boasting about it, for example.

Neither of these women, who I've known well enough, were at all personality disordered - but they were both desperate, grasping at any means to minimise the harm all round, often failing or giving up out of sheer exhaustion and a need to just stop and gather themselves.

It seems to me that the fights happen most when mothers like this try to parent their sons normally. Ie, do your chores, or you cannot ride your bike/play that game. It's like open invitation to battle, whereas other children in the family of the one boy with siblings understand that these are the rules of the house.

It's been said of both boys that people would not be surprised if they grew up into serial killers. One has grown up -- and joined a Buddhist community as a means of helping his rage issues, after finally agreeing to therapy. He's still an odd one, but there's people who are fond of him and glad to see him finally wanting to help himself.

The other one, far more unpleasant in many ways, has not left home yet and already has a lengthy police record.

Now, seeing how frazzled, upset and desperate these mothers have been, how they are percieved by mothers of 'normal' kids in their communities -- if either boy indeed went on a murder spree, I can bet you both mothers would be instantly "depressed and abusive single parents" because that's the going model for what creates kids like this. I can just see Johnny Still-at-Home whining in the aftermath about his nagging mother, I really can. And these mothers the inspiration for this theory, both dealing with exactly the same passive-aggressive personality traits in these men as I see in these two boys (well, one's a man now but anyway..)

Could they have coped better? Sure. And that's what I'm saying. Society is not at all prepared for kids like this to pop up in families, functional or otherwise, and ill prepared to deal with them turning into strong young men.

So I guess what I am saying is, if abuse did not shape these young men, how'd they get that way? And is assuming abuse (which is what is happening) actually doing a disservice not only to the parents but to any studies undertaken under the assumption, which has somehow (ie, quotes taken from their sociopath sons) become fact? Is it skewing our perception?

Maybe not. But I think it ought to be looked at a bit harder, just in case.

Smoke does not always mean fire. But it can.

Abuse does shape a serial killer. But some serial killer have perfectly lovely childhoods. There is no one thing that causes this. There are a dozen or more things that cause this. There is physical issues, mental, social, psychological, environmental, even spiritual and religious issues.

Gein is essentially the opposite if the forbidden experiment. The Forbidden experiment is a construct where psychologists take an infant and deprive it of human interaction in order to see what nature makes us without interference. Obviously no one will ever do this. Though there was a seminal case in the 70s of a girl who was hideously abused in just this way, and she had provided some information. It's the Jeannie case if you want to read up on it. But Gein was so isolated from other humans that there is no way to know what nature would have done, he was altered from day 1.

Everyone else, pick your poison. If I want to say that abuse made Kemper, and you want to say that brain abnormalities did, we are both right. If someone wants to come in with abandonment and socialization as the root cause, they're right too.

We want there to be a common thread in serial killers. A single red thread in a tapestry that we can pull and make them normal. It doesn't exist.

Both of your guys could end up as serial killers. They clearly have some psychopathy going on. But with everything that is known about these people, they could equally become a Buddhist monks. Or airplane mechanics. One person ticking two boxes can become a serial killer, while another person ticking 9 boxes does not.

But I will say this. It's an unpopular opinion, but it's true. All anger is justified. These boys have genuine rage towards their mothers. It's real, it's justified, it needs to be dealt with. That doesn't mean these women are terrible or abusive. But a strained atmosphere creates an environment with no communication. If one of these boys was angry about being called lazy at school, and his mom tell him to stop being lazy and do his homework, poor word choice. But he can't tell her that her words hurt him, so she can't tell him that it was just an expression and she didn't mean to hurt him. They can't resolve that. And they need to.

They also need to stop protecting them. It is the fastest way to ensure that your child fails in life. They need to experience real consequences. Being homeless. Serving real time. There are support groups for just these issues.

But that kid needs to be out of the house. 18 and then the boot. Because there are rules, and there are codes of behavior. It's okay to not want to obey. But you do it on your own.

[Ausgirl]

Sorry Errata, re grandma, but I still fail to see anything that suggests she had a "severe personality disorder". Clarnell - well, maybe, if it's possible to hide it from your coworkers at work every day (and I am not being snide, it may well be possible).

I'd still like to see evidence of it coming originally from anywhere but Kemper's mouth though. I see nothing for grandma, except a desire to make him quit shooting birds and removal of the gun. As for grandpa... well, all that comes out of Kemper's mouth yet again doesn't it.

But frankly there is no alternate reason for him expressing that kind of rage without her earning at least a more than ordinary share of rage. It strongly suggests he felt injured by her. And as he wasn't delusional, probably for a good reason.

And there's also a good chance that a majority of that reason existed nowhere outside of Kemper's head.

I have known two young men in my lifetime who have hated their mothers with a passion, yet relied on them because their mothers cleaned up after them, figuratively and literally. They are both nice women, if often exhausted and overwhelmed. They are both often afraid of - and for- their sons. They both refuse to give up on pushing these boys into taking responsibility for themselves. Basic things, like picking up clothes, getting up on time for classes or work, mowing the yard, become literal wars where violence can escalate quickly. If the police are called, the boys are suddenly calm and contrite. One of them in particular will then spend weeks 'punishing' his mother by knocking holes in the wall of their rented home, breaking windows, passive aggressive "accidents' incurring costs of repair she can't afford, and giving her the silent treatment unless he wants something. Both boys have friends, most of whom are uncomfortable with the way these mothers are regarded and treated by their sons -- who call them "nags" and other not very nice things.

Some of their acts toward their mothers that I have heard about are sheerly revolting, putting nasty things in their food and drink and boasting about it, for example.

Neither of these women, who I've known well enough, were at all personality disordered - but they were both desperate, grasping at any means to minimise the harm all round, often failing or giving up out of sheer exhaustion and a need to just stop and gather themselves.

It seems to me that the fights happen most when mothers like this try to parent their sons normally. Ie, do your chores, or you cannot ride your bike/play that game. It's like open invitation to battle, whereas other children in the family of the one boy with siblings understand that these are the rules of the house.

It's been said of both boys that people would not be surprised if they grew up into serial killers. One has grown up -- and joined a Buddhist community as a means of helping his rage issues, after finally agreeing to therapy. He's still an odd one, but there's people who are fond of him and glad to see him finally wanting to help himself.

The other one, far more unpleasant in many ways, has not left home yet and already has a lengthy police record.

Now, seeing how frazzled, upset and desperate these mothers have been, how they are percieved by mothers of 'normal' kids in their communities -- if either boy indeed went on a murder spree, I can bet you both mothers would be instantly "depressed and abusive single parents" because that's the going model for what creates kids like this. I can just see Johnny Still-at-Home whining in the aftermath about his nagging mother, I really can. And these mothers the inspiration for this theory, both dealing with exactly the same passive-aggressive personality traits in these men as I see in these two boys (well, one's a man now but anyway..)

Could they have coped better? Sure. And that's what I'm saying. Society is not at all prepared for kids like this to pop up in families, functional or otherwise, and ill prepared to deal with them turning into strong young men.

So I guess what I am saying is, if abuse did not shape these young men, how'd they get that way? And is assuming abuse (which is what is happening) actually doing a disservice not only to the parents but to any studies undertaken under the assumption, which has somehow (ie, quotes taken from their sociopath sons) become fact? Is it skewing our perception?

Maybe not. But I think it ought to be looked at a bit harder, just in case.

[Errata]

I haven't seen anything about the grandmother having BPD symptoms.. just that Kemper considered her a "nag" (like Clarnell was a "nag") for taking the gun away from him, to stop him shooting up birds on her property. Is pretty much it, though there may be other material I've not seen.

I've never heard that his grandmother was BPD. And that makes sense since she was not Clarnell's mother. But she was not especially tuned to reality, and was overly rigid when she had to deal with it. Some people are just like that, for others it's a disorder. She wasn't dangerous or anything, but she got hurt when reality did not live up to idealism. Her husband was submissive, because it was easier to give in than to sort of yank her head around. I mean, my mom is like this, but she's a lovable kook. She is frustrating as all get out, but she's never hurt a fly. But her reality cannot be challenged, and her reality is not always based in truth. It's called avoidant personality disorder, and sometimes the same thing applies to those with histrionic personality disorder. Although Borderline can look like that, but usually not without making someone a trial to be around. What separates a personality disorder from an odd quirk is how dysfunctional it makes a person. If Kemper's grandmother refused to face facts to the point that she continued to ignore the behavior of a child who eventually killed her, that's pretty dysfunctional. That's disorder level dysfunctional.

There's a lot we don't know. But the various descriptions of his grandparents behavior towards each other, especially his grandfather's apparent submissiveness makes me think something was in fact wrong. It's a sort of "don't rock the boat" attitude. It's the attitude people adopt when the person they love more than life itself is not rational. If there isn't a strong love, a person is not motivated to spare the others feelings. If that person is rational, there is no need to adopt a submissive position in a relationship that on the surface appears to be between equals. It's pretty common in the families of mentally ill people. Not that the families act rationally or proportionally, you cannot theorize the severity of a problem by the intensity of the reaction in a person's loved ones. .

I got the feeling that the grandparents' shooting was more about nanna getting a solid bead on Kemper's sadistic nature and he reacted to that. I also suspect the same happened with Clarnell's murder, that it was more about what she knew or suspected, and he's lost the plot with her as well. Little hints to it, here and there.. something about all that suggests to me that his motives were far from the ones he admitted to.

Neither here nor there, really, just interesting to talk about.

I think it had nothing to do with her at all. And he doesn't think it had to do with her. I think he had certainly reached an age where dominant women made him very angry. His father had abandoned him twice already by this time. His mother had given up on him. Even if that was all, that would have been enough to cause a terrible episode of misplaced anger. I think it was the mother of all transference. She disciplined him. Something she did all the time. He got angry, like he did all the time. But he was in a bad place. He was just reaching the height of his fantasies, he is still a teenager with all the attendant hormonal issues, and he had been dwelling on being thrown away yet again after just getting home. And he had a gun in his hand. It wasn't about her. It was about him. She didn't do anything. And this is pretty characteristic of most serial killer's first murder. They don't plan it, it comes from a heightened emotional state, their victim could be substituted for just about anyone and it would have happened.

It's the murder of his grandfather that was interesting. He said that he killed him because he didn't want his grandfather to see what he had done. And some people interpret this to mean he didn't want to get in trouble. But he called his mother immediately after it happened, he called the cops, and he waited for them. Getting punished was not the fear. Either he didn't want to see the hurt he caused his grandfather, or he didn't want his grandfather to have to see his wife that way. At 15, the little empathetic ability he had would have been online. And either way, in a very bizarre way, he killed his grandfather because he had a high regard for him. He loved him, as much as he was capable. And I think that had he killed his grandfather first, he would have killed his grandmother for the same reason. I think he loved her in his way. He didn't kill them because of something to do with them. Regardless of whether or not he loved them, he killed them. It's two different things in his head. In the truly creepy parts of his crimes, he can talk about a woman like he loves her and like she is a piece of meat at the same time. And his fantasies were sexually graphic, but oddly enough involved consent, love, passion. In his fantasies these women wanted him because they loved him. And he loved them in those fantasies, but not in reality.

The mind is a messy place. It doesn't all make sense, and it doesn't all match up.

Greg, thanks. Yup, the genetic/brain imaging info we have now is fascinating. Also, may possibly help identify those kids at risk of future trouble.. which is kind of scary in itself, isn't it?

God forbid. We know these defects exist, but we also know they don't always exist in the heads of killers. My MRI looks similar to Kemper's. I had a terrible head injury when I was about 5. It rewired my brain. My frontal lobe, my empathy is intact. It's just sort of shoved up higher. With that defect and the behaviors of childhood onset Bipolar, I would have been locked up for life. And I never would have been treated for what I actually had. Some people get along fine without the empathy centers. Some people don't, but learn through observation and are fine. Some people's brain reorganizes and replaces the damaged parts. And 1 in 50 times it happens in a killer. My theory is that we don't screen for it unless we can treat it. Because that's a lot of kids in jail for having done nothing wrong at all.

Errata's hit the mark, though, I think, when she says there's likely a combination of causes for someone to end up like Kemper and co. Maybe born sociopathy, combined with genetics, maybe extreme narcissism, some stress in the home (not necessarily abuse, maybe divorce, maybe just parents who don't know how to cope with a sociopath child), maybe peer bullying (and I want to talk about that a bit later..), social and sexual rejection.. and so on, etc.

We don't know why people bite their nails, or why they can't sneeze with their eyes open (contrary to popular belief, your eyes would not rocket out of your head). We don't even know why some babies are born breech, and theoretically, that's something a uterus should totally be able to control. I don't see us nailing down the causation of serial killers. Especially when I can count at least 9 different reasons teenage girls cry at Ol' Yeller.

What I'd like to see, given that there's been so many developments in our understanding of these people and their minds and brains, is perhaps less kneejerk "blame the parents" as a catch-all for what makes a serial killer -- for a couple of different reasons.

1. Because I obviously believe that not ALL parents of serial killers abused their kids into being sociopathic mutilators.

2. And because if this is recognised, maybe the parents of the next generation of killers might be more inclined to seek help, rather than closing ranks/protecting/isolating their offspring until it's too late and innocent people are hurt or dead. It might also protect the children from abusive disciplinary measures and the like, that may come -after- the harmful behaviour manifests, from desperate/angry parents with poor coping skills.

3. It's easy for serial killers to blame their parents, and often their word is all we ever hear on the subject, which then becomes "fact" repeated in media, which then becomes Clarnell's phantom BPD diagnosis, which might not actually exist. For the sake of our general understanding, these claims need to be verified if possible.

4. I want to know WHY these men with relatively (compared to say, Mary Bell or Ottis Toole, or Charles Manson) normal families became postmortem mutilators, specifically. Is there a correlation to this protective parenting style I'm percieving -- and maybe schoolyard bullying -- early puberty -- precociousness -- all combined?

It's really hard to look at these men, the long list of commonalities there, and NOT think maybe it's not coincidence they all liked not just killing but killing and -then- ripping...

The only serial killer whose mother I blame is Ed Gein. And not because she was abusive. It's how she was abusive. If you were going to build Ed Gein from the ground up, you would need 17 specific ideas he would have to be exposed to by the age of 3. And by god that woman hit every single one. The odds of this happening accidentally are mindblowingly small. Like, discovering a new element unlikely. Not only that, she threw in a few more not just ensuring that her son would be a killer, but that he would make a woman suit. The only thing he brought to the table was his low IQ. Which doesn't make him more likely to be a serial killer, but does mean that he will have problems connecting to the outside world. Because of his IQ and his extreme isolation, Gein had no choice.

I think Kemper's mother abused him, and I think she created a monster. She created a serial rapist, possibly an extreme sadist or masochist. Upgrading to serial killer he did on his own. The specific crimes he committed speak a lot to his particular fears and issues. But he had choices. He did not make the right ones. Or to be more specific, he made a few right choices and was ignored. His reaction was to never try to make the right choice again until he became terrified of dying. And he still doesn't always make the right choice. He still indulges his fantasies. He does it alone, but he still does it. He pursues no more therapy than is legally required. But at this point since he's locked up, I'm just thankful he keeps waiving parole hearings. Good choice Ed, keep that up.

But the way he killed his mother... He was not delusional. He was not under the impression that what he was doing was normal, or okay, or acceptable. He was very aware. So what he did to his mother was absolutely his choice, not influence by delusions or paranoia or anything other than intense rage and blistering hate. Other people had tried to reign him in. Other people had tried to get him to get help, or police his behavior. He didn't kill them. He didn't kill his sisters. He didn't kill his father, although given the direction he was driving when he fled I wouldn't rule out that he was toying with it. But especially with such a poetic gesture as trying jam her voice box down the garbage disposal... I'm not saying she deserved to get killed. Nobody does, mostly. But frankly there is no alternate reason for him expressing that kind of rage without her earning at least a more than ordinary share of rage. It strongly suggests he felt injured by her. And as he wasn't delusional, probably for a good reason.

[MayBea]

I think this discussion is pertinent with regard to the mutilation of MJK. Is it overkill suggesting a real relationship or assumed relationship or is it part of the escalation?

True Crime writer, Kirk Gill, on this Dahmer-related video (about 20 sec. mark) suggests that SKs like Dahmer liked the "possession more than the killing".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glazWBFrAaQ

Perhaps the 'possessiveness' is a trait you would expect from someone from an overprotective family. The question always remains: Is it causative or mutually inclusive, or was it the trigger and the last straw?

[Ausgirl]

His grandmother, his mother, him all with severe personality disorders. It's interesting because originally it was believed that axis II disorders could not be genetic. Now we know they can be, and we have three generations of strong personalities with similar problems.

I haven't seen anything about the grandmother having BPD symptoms.. just that Kemper considered her a "nag" (like Clarnell was a "nag") for taking the gun away from him, to stop him shooting up birds on her property. Is pretty much it, though there may be other material I've not seen.

I got the feeling that the grandparents' shooting was more about nanna getting a solid bead on Kemper's sadistic nature and he reacted to that. I also suspect the same happened with Clarnell's murder, that it was more about what she knew or suspected, and he's lost the plot with her as well. Little hints to it, here and there.. something about all that suggests to me that his motives were far from the ones he admitted to.

Neither here nor there, really, just interesting to talk about.

Greg, thanks. Yup, the genetic/brain imaging info we have now is fascinating. Also, may possibly help identify those kids at risk of future trouble.. which is kind of scary in itself, isn't it?

Errata's hit the mark, though, I think, when she says there's likely a combination of causes for someone to end up like Kemper and co. Maybe born sociopathy, combined with genetics, maybe extreme narcissism, some stress in the home (not necessarily abuse, maybe divorce, maybe just parents who don't know how to cope with a sociopath child), maybe peer bullying (and I want to talk about that a bit later..), social and sexual rejection.. and so on, etc.

What I'd like to see, given that there's been so many developments in our understanding of these people and their minds and brains, is perhaps less kneejerk "blame the parents" as a catch-all for what makes a serial killer -- for a couple of different reasons.

1. Because I obviously believe that not ALL parents of serial killers abused their kids into being sociopathic mutilators.

2. And because if this is recognised, maybe the parents of the next generation of killers might be more inclined to seek help, rather than closing ranks/protecting/isolating their offspring until it's too late and innocent people are hurt or dead. It might also protect the children from abusive disciplinary measures and the like, that may come -after- the harmful behaviour manifests, from desperate/angry parents with poor coping skills.

3. It's easy for serial killers to blame their parents, and often their word is all we ever hear on the subject, which then becomes "fact" repeated in media, which then becomes Clarnell's phantom BPD diagnosis, which might not actually exist. For the sake of our general understanding, these claims need to be verified if possible.

4. I want to know WHY these men with relatively (compared to say, Mary Bell or Ottis Toole, or Charles Manson) normal families became postmortem mutilators, specifically. Is there a correlation to this protective parenting style I'm percieving -- and maybe schoolyard bullying -- early puberty -- precociousness -- all combined?

It's really hard to look at these men, the long list of commonalities there, and NOT think maybe it's not coincidence they all liked not just killing but killing and -then- ripping...

[Errata]

There's a lot of reasons why I think Kemper, as a sociopath and an extremely convincing liar, bungs on the semblance of remorse and self-awareness of his wrongs, while not really giving a toss (check out the way he refers to his victims, for example) and likely seeking reduction of prison time (as he did before, when incarcerated in the mental hospital for the murders of his grandparents).

There is no doubt that Kemper remains a dangerous psychopath. And he is a brilliant liar. He is self aware. But he is not remorseful. Not the way we would prefer him to be. He seems to truly regret that he was not able to have a normal life. He feels robbed that he could not have normal relationships and want what other men want. But he does not feel remorse. He is not sorry he killed most of those women. Apparently with about 30 years of hindsight he did manage to regret killing a 15 year old girl. But he qualified that statement with the idea that he should have kept looking, he would have found someone else. If released, he would do it again. And he is truthful about that. But he doesn't want to be the way he is. He wishes he was normal.

On the other hand, he cant get a reduction in prison time. He is not in jail. He is in the California Medical Facility. He is up for review and possible parole every so often. As of now, he has waived every parole hearing he could. His first parole hearing was not waived, but he did not participate. And he asked for the death penalty. This is not a display of guilt. But the thing to remember about Kemper is that his general low esteem for humanity also applies to him. He hates himself. He hates everybody. He does not, and will not defend himself in any meaningful way, because he doesn't think anyone is worth saving.

But he knows that no one in their right mind is going to release him, even if he turned into a paragon of mankind. He's not getting out. No one is going to open his file, see those pictures, and pay a bit of attention to any recovery he may have made. The man is a genius. So he's certainly not dumb enough to think that someone looking at a picture of his severed head masturbatory aid is going to give him a chance.

Given his history and what I can see and read of him, I am not at all inclined to give him an inch of credibility when it comes to anything he says. Including what he says about his mother.

So if we remove ALL of Kemper's claims as to his mother's nature and mistreatment, what are we left with? No evidence Clarnell *ever* saw a psychiatrist, nor that she was *ever* diagnosed with *anything*. If she was moody and unstable, it never happened while she was at work.

And you don't have to believe him. In the end it's only a part of the puzzle. Abuse didn't get him where he is now. Biology had a lot to do with it, and even then, we have no idea what makes a serial killer. It could be one thing, it could be a dozen things that has to happen in the right order at the right time. We don't know what causes this. Likely we never will.

I believe the story about his mom. It's just too similar to what I know and what I've seen with Borderline parents. And since the disease had not been fully identified yet, he didn't research it. But I don't see it as an excuse. I see it as a demonstration of a genetic propensity towards mental illness. His grandmother, his mother, him all with severe personality disorders. It's interesting because originally it was believed that axis II disorders could not be genetic. Now we know they can be, and we have three generations of strong personalities with similar problems. Had his father been in the picture, or some other adult who could see the full picture, he would have gone inpatient by the time he was 13. And it very well may not have saved him. But it would have saved others. So one thing I deal with constantly as a counselor is how insular families get when they have these kinds of problems. Where sort of no one is okay. And trying to get them to step out of their bubble to clearly see the full picture, and save their kids. So I find it interesting that she may have been Borderline, and it explains some stuff, but it's not some kind of smoking gun.

Where do the claims regarding the frequency and duration of his cellar confinement come from? I don't actually know, and must look into it further. If it comes from say, his sisters, that's one thing. If primarily from Kemper, that's another, because as I have said, the man is a classic sociopath who fooled a lot of professionals, doctors and cops alike, into thinking he was harmless.

I believe the first appearance of it was his intake forms after he shot his grandparents. It may not be the intake form, but it's part of the initial paperwork of his commitment. It's been so long I don't remember if it came from an interview with him or with his mother. It's filled out by a third party, so even the handwriting isn't helping me there. I think it came from her, I think it was part of her story about why she sent him to his grandparents. But if it was from a review portion that was putting all the relevant info into one place, it could have come from anywhere. But the story comes out early. And it was known to the doctors in the hospital, because they strenuously objected to him being released into her care. I mean, they strenuously objected to him being released at all, but especially to his mother's custody.

Watch his interviews carefully, though and he slips, in important and telling places. He cries (tearlessly) over his mother's memory -- wry laugh! -- and then talks about his victims like they were objects. Yet overall, he projects a very calm and affable persona -- wasn't it Ressler who said he was the nicest serial killer he'd ever met? He's a manipulator through and through.

People are complicated.

I think he regrets a part of mother's murder. Frankly I think it was the catharsis he really needed, but upon reflection he may regret the rape part. He was very very very angry. And we all do things in anger that we regret. Not that, that's gross. But something.

He never saw his victims as individuals with their own lives and their own needs. They were not exactly objects, but they weren't people. More like a beloved doll. But they weren't human when he picked them up, they weren't human when he killed them, and they can't be human now. Remember the brain abnormality? He is incapable of empathy. He can't humanize them after the fact. He literally can't. So his demeanor when talking about them will never change. Even if he regrets it.

And there's no doubt he's a charming guy. My boss interviewed him about his participation in medical studies, and he had to run get a file. We were like, 8 people crammed in a living room so my boss handed me the phone to get a follow up on a question. I talked to Kemper for maybe three minutes, and he made a serial killer joke. A funny one. I was laughing pretty hard. He was as advertised. The nicest serial killer out there. But it's as much an adaptive behavior as my putting on "psycho aggressive chick" hat when I'm in a bar by myself. I act in a way that ensures I do not get hurt. So does he. If he's nice and charming and all that, people will talk to him. They won't flee the room as he enters. He doesn't get rejected. He's just better at it than most people. The stakes are higher for him.

[GregBaron]

Demon seed...

Yes indeed friends, psychopathy appears to have a genetic component.

Neuroscience has shown many times that psychopathic brains react differently to various stimuli.

There was a terrific article in the New York Times some time back concerning cold, callous children whose parents were at their wit’s end about treatment. These kids had no empathy and couldn’t seem to develop any.

The leader in the Columbine massacre had an ordinary upbringing with decent, if busy, parents. Everyone wanted to blame them. After the kid’s murders and death and the discovery of his writings, his parents admitted he was a psychopath who they didn’t really know at all.

I’m afraid there are bad seeds you all and not only that, it’s been surmised that socio/psychopaths make up 4% of the population and have been selected for by Darwinism because they are advantageous in war and risk situations. Not all are violent of course and these often become our CEO’s and Politicians.

Give that some thought my friends…


Greg