Infamy or Obscurity: The Mind of a Serial Killer

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Another interesting this is that the only treatments available only treat the symptoms because science still haven't completely figured out why or what causes these illnesses. I have also noticed if the doctors do find a effective treatment it only works for up to two years then a new drug regiment is required.

Like anything else in life, satiation is inevitable.

The medications are nothing more than a drug, and like any other drug.. after a prolonged exposure you require more of the substance for the same desired effect. For medicational purposes, new medications are going to be required inevitable. And when they are not adjusted accordingly over time, the individual is at serious risk of harm to them self and/or others.

Just like any program developed to support these individuals. It may work wonders, but it is only temporary. Things always need to change to keep things interesting.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I would love to hear your theroy on why this is, because I'm clueless unless it's some sort of affluent weird race orientated thing.

One word sums this one up; power.

The more I think of this, the more I confuse myself. But these individuals are couped with an unshakable sense of superiority and an insatiable taste for control. Taking a look into the history books, who has held the power? Females? Minorities? The white male has controlled the western world for as long as history tells us.

These acts hinge on power and control, seem to always be committed by white males, who just happen to have held power over society for centuries.. this isn't a coincidence.

It would be rare for a female or non-white man to be couped with the unshakable sense of superiority at a time when the white man ruled with an iron thumb. Serial killers were rampant in the 60's and 70's, when the road to equal rights was slowly being paved.

Is it an accident that now we see equal rights and that serial killers seem to have fallen to the wayside?

Look at the time line for all of the big named serial killers through the "social revolution".. scary times.

reply to post by chissler

More often than not, the serial killers we study were the victim of a very poor upbringing and look at the norms of our society with extreme envy.

To me, the fact that this sort of upbringing drove these people to become killers means that they are in fact mentally ill. I don't think it's possible to know how many people experience traumatic upbringings like the ones you mentioned, but I am sure that it is more than the number of people who become killers.

To me, it's like a genetic disposition toward an illness. If someone has this predisposition toward diabetes and still ate poorly and didn't exercise it wouldn't be a shock if they developed the disease. If someone had a mental predisposition toward craziness, and they had a traumatic upbringing to bring it out, I think it's safe to say they are more crazy because of something in their own mind rather than something in the way they were brought up.

reply to post by Skyfloating


If I were a betting woman I would definitely bet that if reports of crime went down the crime rate would plummet as well. Not disappear, but definitely lessen.

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by The-Tyrant
So you're saying that it's better to picked on, then not to recognize at all?

Yes.

Would you rather be talked about or not even known to exist? I guess it is a matter of opinion, but I'm willing to bet that those who walk through life without any degree of social acknowledgment, envy those who receive negative attention.

This is an very interesting question to me. I've been talked about my whole life, negative and positive. So I don't really know what it would be like to have no social acknowledgement. This does make sense though. I mean let's look at it from a womans point of view, now. Don't you find it funny that women always wear slutty, revealing clothing, yet they act like they don't want attention when someone looks. Even though we know they really do want the attention. What are your thoughts on this behavior?

[edit on 17-7-2008 by The-Tyrant]

Originally posted by chissler


It would be rare for a female or non-white man to be couped with the unshakable sense of superiority at a time when the white man ruled with an iron thumb. Serial killers were rampant in the 60's and 70's, when the road to equal rights was slowly being paved.

I don't want to leave out the case of Aileen Wuornos, the serial killer from Florida portrayed by Charlize Theron in the 2003 movie 'Monster'. Aileen spent periods of time in her life as a prostitute and after one of her johns (allegedly) brutally raped her, she killed him. Then she went on a killing spree, luring men as a prostitute and then killing them. She was unmistakably overcome with the lust for power. Power was taken from her during her rape but she most definitely took it back when she killed her rapist.

Wiki says that Wuornos was abused time and time again by family members, both physically and sexually, while she was a child and teen. I suppose it's more correct to say that her feeling of powerlessness began then and only returned after she committed murder.

Well, a lot of people desire to be in the limelight... However, many of them never put themselves in enough or the right social situations to experience such a thing.

While most serial killers are not your stereotypical loners, many are not exactly social butterflies either. I watched a biography of Bundy and one of the guys who knew him well said that he doesn't remember Bundy ever being extroverted.

I think that some people who think they should be recognized will risk and do anything to do so. Even if it means doing something unmentionable.

This thread has gotten interesting in my absence - some stereotyping and erroneous assumptions about who does what and why and a couple of little red flags.

Keep digging. You're poking around the edges of the meat, so to speak. Religion plays a huge role in this dysfunction. Parental dynamics do as well.

When Mom is packing the testicles and Dad isn't, all kinds of strange things happen, especially when you throw GOD into the mix.

Have you ever noticed how toxic God is when added to most recipes?

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


I had read about how Bundy "reinvented" himself once entering university. As a high school student, he kept to himself and rarely associated with anyone. Once entering college though, he was the social butterfly and even went as far as entering the political scene in order to make a name for himself.

All of it is completely fascinating.

As "strong" as each of these individuals are, and as cold as they presented themselves, I would say most still feared death. Not everyone, but a lot. Gary Ridgeway made a deal to avoid a capital punishment case, Ted Bundy squirmed right until the bitter end thinking he could keep delaying his date for the chair, and DeSalvo seemed to let everyone think he was crazy in order to avoid prison.. and ultimately the chair.

Men who murdered for what seems to be sport, and had no second thoughts about having intercourse with deceased, rotting bodies, were still terrified of death.

Someone who hasn't been mentioned, David Berkowitz. Did he act alone, or was he just a piece of the puzzle of this possible satanic group that was terrorizing New York in the 1970's? His background reinforces much of what we have had to say about Bundy, DeSalvo, and others.. but he wasn't the sexual deviant that others were. I'm not so sure it was about control with Berkowitz.. but not to say it wasn't. He used an impersonal weapon and rarely was "up close and personal" with his victims like so many before him. He simply shot from a few feet away and fled the scene. No sexual misconduct, no necrophilia.. just murder. However, his first act of murder was a failure and he chose the up close and personal approach with a knife. The victim escaped with little harm and he badly cut himself, which resulted in him deciding that he would not be so sloppy next time.

Berkowitz goes against the typical serial killers in some facets, but reinforces existing beliefs with others. But interesting, nonetheless.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Im glad you recognize "Natural Born Killers" for what it is. Oliver Stone never makes "blood and guts entertainment movies", there´s always an underlying message. And that movie is full of messages also in accord with what is being discovered in this thread.

Originally posted by Sleuth

On television, he didn't appear to be a big man, but in real life he was very muscular for his size. His physical presence could be intimidating to some people because he didn't say much.

I have to say something, being a Media communications graduate. A video will make a person look any where from 10-15 pounds heavier than they are in real life. It can also make them look taller, et cetera, depending on camera angle. Dahmer was only about 6'0" maybe 6'1" and didn't weigh over 180-185 pounds. That's not very big.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

I ate supper with this inmate every night for months. I escorted him here and there and everywhere. I'm pretty sure I know how big he was.

Originally posted by Sleuth
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

 

I ate supper with this inmate every night for months. I escorted him here and there and everywhere. I'm pretty sure I know how big he was.

I have to assume your were/are a prison guard? And if you could enlighten us on these red flags on this thread that you mentioned, that would be just peachy?

reply to post by LDragonFire

I don't think so. Right out of the gate, you give me attitude. Forget it. You haven't earned it.

Civil U2U's from interested parties will be answered if they do not compromise security or confidentiality.

Originally posted by Sleuth
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

I don't think so. Right out of the gate, you give me attitude. Forget it. You haven't earned it.

Civil U2U's from interested parties will be answered if they do not compromise security or confidentiality.

Hmmm I'm afraid you misunderstood me then, because I don't see any attitude. You come across like your some type of authority on the subject and I asked if you could explain.

EXXXXXXXXXXXCUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEE ME

With attitude!

But I do have to agree I'm seeing some red flags

Let's keep it on topic people.

Discuss the topic not each other. This is the internet where people pretend to be people and things they are not. Discussing each other is a waste of time.
.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Jeffery Dalmer is a enigma, he had a fairly normal upbringing his father was strict and very religious, and later Jeffery had a drinking problem but other than him killing same animals as a child there was really no warning signs for his behavior later in life

I do not think Dahmer actually killed animals. He developed a fascination with dissection in high school right around the time he had his first sexual experiences with the boy down the street, and they suspect that may have caused a link, but he was supposedly an animal lover.

Now he did dissect and do odd things with dead animals that he found (roadkill and such) but his kink was not sadism. He didn’t even enjoy killing his human victims, he just wanted to use them and found that was often easiest when they were dead. Of course he also experimented with drilling holes in their heads and trying to turn them into zombie sex slaves, but again it was not about sadism, it was about using them.

reply to post by Sonya610


You are correct, I was under the impression that he would kill the animals.

I'm guessing with Jeffery it was some sort of control issue.

I do not think all serial killers are mentally ill. One example of a mentally ill serial killer would be Ed Gein. Fascinating stuff.

Harold Shipman would be a serial killer that you could debate all day. Although he committed suicide in the end, it would be hard to say if he really was mentally ill.

I think most are highly intelligent and they simply enjoy killing as much as we like reading ATS. How else can you put it?

As for Chapman, he was simply in it for the fame. He actually liked John Lennon, but knew that he could never BE John Lennon. He wanted the fame and simply found it in the worst possible way. Killing one of the most popular icons of all time was his way of exerting power.

It is hard to say if he simply did it on impulse or how long he planned it, but I am guessing the man is pretty smart.

Serial killers veer off into two categories. The morons who commit crimes on impulse (and are usually caught) and those that plan (who are highly intelligent) and usually get away with it for some time.

The Zodiac killer is somewhere in between yet was never caught. If he had been killing today, he would be toast.

Originally posted by Gools
Let's keep it on topic people.

Discuss the topic not each other. This is the internet where people pretend to be people and things they are not. Discussing each other is a waste of time.
.

Gee, thanks. All those years of sweating like zee peeg and bleeding over garbage cans, wasted.

My apologies to L'Dragon. Your post hit me the wrong way at the wrong time.

"Slutty" statements make for fertile dirt. It's all about the power. You're going to understand that I know you better than you know you by the time I'm done with you."

Jeff wasn't crazy. His idea of normal was different. Sounds weird, I know.

Originally posted by DulcimerI think most are highly intelligent and they simply enjoy killing as much as we like reading ATS. How else can you put it?

Yes most are pretty intelligent. Some are quite stupid but lived in a more innocent time, or were just very random. But realize it takes some brains to go serial and get away with it, if one is stupid and they get caught after 2 or 3 they do not make the ranks of big time "serial killers".

reply to post by Dulcimer

I think you're confusing the spree killers with serial killers. They're two different animals, so to speak.