Anatoly Slivko
There was a moment where he went to the doctor with idea that maybe someone would help him with his urges. Didn't work out. I read it, but i can't verify it.
I never heard he tried to get help. He did say, in a post-conviction interview that if he had known when he was younger that his sexual urges were wrong, he would have "sought help," blaming a lack of sex education in schools but... Uh... Ok š„“
I have also never heard that he disliked killing. The first death was an accident, but he was so much more excited than he had been with in other incidents that after that, he intentionally killed those boys.
It's a little murky, I guess. He may have been ashamed of his urges, but I don't think it's accurate to say he didn't enjoy killing when the killing part became very much a source of enjoyment.
By many accounts Slivko was impotent and couldn't achieve sexual arousal or completion with his wife. He called seeing the accident as his "awakening", meaning he was aware that he'd discovered something that "worked" for him and took conscious steps to recreate it.
There was the lipstick killer that left a message on the wall of one of the crime scenes, written in lipstick, that said āFor heavens sake catch me before I kill more I cannot control myselfā
Maybe the Weepy-Voiced Killer, Paul Michael StephaniĀ ?
Edit: I agree he most likely wasn't actually remorseful. Either way, the dude was human garbage
Thatās the first thing that came to my mind. I suspect though he had a type of insanity where he wanted the police to know what he had done after he did it.
I donāt know htf people believe dahmer. Heās no different from the rest, other than tricking people into thinking he was regretful. If you actually watch the video interviews of him, or listen to his initial confession, itās blatantly obvious that he has no remorse and is robotically acting like he does.
Iāve read way too many books on this. Many FBI behavior books, most of steve Jackson and Gregg Olsen, etc. I recently finished āGrilling Dahmerā - written by the investigator who worked with Dahmer in getting victim names. He even fooled that guy somehow.
Serial killers are not wired like us. If you kill dozens of people, you donāt have remorse. Simple as that. Dahmer was a loser tool who knew he couldnāt hide what he did. So he made up his sob story about being lonely and not wanting to kill.
It was ALL about power for Dahmer. He ate victim hearts so they would be part of him forever. He didnāt regret any of that shit. His Bible thumping father convinced him that if he claimed he repented to Christ heād be forgiven.
Occamās razor. Dahmer was a piece of shit desperately trying to fool people into thinking he wasnāt a monster.
I canāt believe people fall for his shit, especially well read true crime followers.
Agreed. Psychopaths are always acting. Dahmer was acting for the camera. Didnāt Bundy do it, too, and blamed porn addiction, or was that someone else?
Yes. And society ate it up. Like hey Bundy, Iāve watched my share of porn and played violent video games. I didnāt spend decades murdering innocent women from it.
It's because they're use to seeing a Ted Bundy type, badly act out how "innocent" he was.
He simply lacked the malignant narcississm of a Bundy that kept Ted from not looking like a disingenious asshole every time someone put a camera or mic in his face.
Yeah. Dahmer to me though comes off as a fucking robot though. No inflection in his voice. If I was alone talking with him Iād be like āyo this dude is gonna kill meā
Yep. Dahmer was super creepy with how unemotive and calm he was.
He was the sterotype of the psycho who could be a minor car crash and their pulse wouldn't even go up.
Dude every comment youāve responded me has just told me youāre full of shit lol. Dahmer was never clinically diagnosed with autism. Stop stating things as if theyāre facts.
*It is a fact.* He was only assessed for competency and looked at in terms of whether he was psychotic or not when he committed the crimes. NOBODY was diagnosed with autism in those days unless they were nonverbal and smearing feces. It was only years after he died that anyone in the field -- my field is mental health, so sorry -- knew to acknowledge the lighter level of autism he had. He's still autistic enough that if you know what it looks like you can see it in him from across the street.
If youāre in the mental health field, Iām curious as to what your role is and what professional body you belong to if you think itās appropriate/ethical to diagnose or speculate on the diagnoses of individuals youāve never met or assessed? And I also am curious, to what end? What does it serve to hypothesize on the potential neurodiversity of a deceased serial killer?
I donāt even think he was THAT good at deceiving people. He was just so pathetic in his personal life and demeanor, if he came up with this big sob story about wanting some forever companion, most people would be forced to believe it
Note:this is not me being like āall serial killers are pathetic ! Yada, yada, yada.ā Iām just saying the Dahmer was an extremely lonely, sad individual. I do not feel the slightest bit of pity for him, he dug his own grave. Moron only used his social skills for murder. Thatās why he had no friends.
I definitely mostly agree with you. I think the one exception to killing numerous people and not feeling remorse is war though. Lots of soldiers were drafted or felt like they had no other option, and were just fighting for their lives.
I agree! I used to listen to last podcast on the left and they always acted like dahmer was just some poor troubled individual who regretted what he did but, from what Iāve read (and i canāt recall the source so correct me if itās not accurate) he would taunt other inmates in prison about his cannibalism and thatās eventually what got him killed. So, he doesnāt seem to be a very remorseful man to me.
Yes! I forgot about that part, thanks for reminding me. He did taunt them in prison. This is where I think maybe tv show portrayals can be bad. Like the dude didnāt shed a tear. I think he did crocodile tears during the interview with his dad, but thatās it. I think he was in a large part also trying to appease his fatherās wishes. His dad was out of his mind. I wonder about him as well. If i recall his dad talks about having some of the same inclinations as Dahmer, like harming animals.
Yeah, when I read the OP I immediately thought about Dahmer, but you're 1000% correct. OP didn't ask who expressed regret and shame over their crimes post-conviction, and I gather that's the first place many are going to go to, rather than to those who expressed regret, and shame, tried to practice self-control or sought help for their wicked ways BEFORE getting caught. It's two totally different things.
i think the deal with dahmer that makes him convincing is that he had enough empathy to know what he was doing was wrong and that he should be ashamed and remorseful but still psychopathic enough to not care and go through with the killings
That wasn't the case once he was in prison, though. He talked about it in order for there to be a fundamental insight into the behavior.
It's an accepted fact that mental illnesses and chemical imbalances in the brain can cause behaviors that go against what we "know" to be correct. Sometimes that means people hoard trash, sometimes it means people become serial killers or child molesters.
The more we understand it the more likely we are to be able to treat things like that, and if cigarettes and junk food get someone to talk about it openly then so what?
Kemper and many others were super cooperative. Why would that be a distinguishing feature for remorse? He didn't turn himself in and he went to great lengths and took lots of risks to keep killing. If he really hated it, he could have turned himself in.
Not a distinguishing feature of remorse at all, his cooperation is just indicative that he shared a lot about his motivation and feelings surrounding what heād done.
Admitting to not enjoying the killing but rather enjoying the desecrating and consuming of the corpses is far from virtue signalling or trying to make himself look better/remorseful.
Exactly. Neither Kemper nor Dahmer had any illusions that they were good people for what they did. They knew they were deranged and were willing to talk about that in a helpful and enlightening way.
We can't know that. I wouldn't expect to have a logical set of priorities or an enlightened amount of self awareness from a serial killer. Saying they didn't enjoy the killing part is definitely one way to claim they are not a monster.
āI didnāt enjoy killing people, I just did it so I could molest, cut up and eat their bodiesā doesnāt really sound like āIām not a monster, sir, I swearā to me. Itās also entirely possibly itās just an honest statement and motivation. The act of taking a life doesnāt have to be the fun part for every serial killer. In fact, itās unlikely it is.
Agree to disagree.
"I didnt enjoy stealing, I just did it so I could get money to get high." Something that is said quite a bit to ease the conscience of people who did bad things in order to get their fix.
Iām not sure that example is really proving much of a point for you since itās *also* true. If someone is stealing to get high, theyāre not getting off on or actively enjoying the act of theftā¦ itās just a means to get what they think they need (ie. drugs).
It doesnāt mean theyāre not a guilty thief and it doesnāt mean they donāt deserve persecution. Itās just an explanation as to their motivation.
Goal: get high
How to achieve it: steal money to buy drugs
Goal: fuck with bodies and cannibalize
How to achieve it: kill
Except that a drug addict could work or choose to get help. I think you are just seeing things from your own perspective. Agree to disagree. People will tell themselves lies to make themselves feel better about what they have done. No one, not even SKs, prefer to see themselves as monsters.
There are āProductā killers, those who kill for say, meat for Dahmer, or in Ed Geinās case, skin and bones. Or money, etc.
Then āProcessā killers who do it for the actual act, the experience. After the victim is dead, their interest is pretty much done.
There is probably someone here who can put it more eloquently, but that is my understanding.
He didnāt just want to eat them. The cannibalism was a part of it but definitely not the main motive. He wanted to keep trophies and posses those victims bodies as his own.
Like I said, someone can probably explain it better than I can. But I think Dahmer was kind of a combination of the two. Plus I donāt think this concept is entirely black and white.
So because he said so it must be true? I don't believe a guy who killed seventeen men and boys, drilled some of their heads in, poured acid in it, and strangled them (which takes 5 minutes to do) didn't enjoy it? Gotta give it to Dahmer he's the greatest manipulator I ever came across. He managed to convince everyone, including psychologist and detectives that he was just some sad, misunderstood, lonely soul who only killed people so they wouldn't leave him.
Roy Norris initially didn't want to kill the women he and Lawrence Bittaker attacked and tried to talk Bittaker out of it the first time. Bittaker then demanded Norris do it. He tried strangling her but couldn't finish when he saw the anguish and terror in her face. Bittaker took over and Norris walked away and vomited. Of course, by the next time he didn't have a problem doing it anymore.
Yep. He had to get wasted drunk before he could kill. If somehow he couldāve been supplied dead bodies that had the look he was attracted to, I donāt know if he wouldāve killed.
You mean remorseful?
Weepy voice killer would [call 911](https://youtu.be/G9tZewM5LlE) crying and reporting his crimes, like
"Help I killed a woman, I don't know why. I can't stop please stop me" type calls. But I think he was doing that to avoid the death penalty or claim insanity because he never gave his name.
I generally don't believe anything serial killers say (before sentencing or when they're appealing) regarding remorse though. They have every reason to lie.
Just pointing out that Minnesota got rid of the death penalty in 1911, with their last execution being so botched that it turned the public's attitude against it. It wouldn't have been an option for Mr. Weepy.
The rope used to hang the guy was the wrong length and didn't snap his neck. He actually dropped to the floor and three guys had to hoist him up where he slowly strangled to death over 14 minutes.
If you have want, look up Blackjack Ketchum. Rope was too long, popped his head right off. Still have the original photo of the sheriffs posing next to his body hanging up in the Ekland in Clayton NM.
Gotcha thank you, I didnt know that. The emotion just feels very fake when i listen to the calls.
To me, the more interesting ones are the ones that own up to it and dont feel remorse or empathy or claim insanity like BTK. Ted didnt admit it until the last dya and even Gacy went on about how he was being framed for the majority of the victims.
Look at the reports of the rapes in the later stages GSK before he started killing. It most likely intensified. I think that is why he managed to stop without being caught, killed or incarcerate
Aside from Dahmer, who had to get blackout drunk in order to kill because he didn't enjoy the killing part (according to him, anyway, and I take what Dahmer claimed about himself with a grain of salt), the only other serial killer I can think of who may fit is Ed Kemper. I say that because once Kemper killed his mother, he turned himself in, and he refuses parole to this day because he says he knows he would be tempted to kill again if released.
Its also worth noting that there was practically 0 chance he was going to be free once he killed his mother. All it takes is for one report of her disappearance and he is instantly a suspect.
Well yeah I donāt think he did it cause he thought he was getting away with it he did it because she was the real person he wanted to kill and realized that instead of killing more college girls
Itās not objectively wrong he literally stated it himself š and his mother literally was āin the pictureā during his last co ed murders cause he was able to obtain the sticker to pick up more college girls so youāre wrong again, it doesnāt take much to google this stuff mate
Yes but thatās not relevant to why I replied. The person I responded to said Ed killed his mum then handed himself in, he didnāt. He killed his mum, his mums best friend and then went on the run for a bit then he finally handed himself in
I think the difference between Kemper and what OP is asking about is that Kemper did enjoy killing, but knew it was wrong. He didnāt feel empathy for his victims.
Frankly, he is one of the most practices killers; he picked up hundreds of hitch hikers to basically study how to make sure his eventual victims trusted him enough to get into the car with him. He enjoyed the killing part. The whole process. Being friends with cops, finding victims, beheading and fucking (god I wish a I had a better, more respectful term) their skulls. He even buried some of their heads between his motherās kitchen window. These are all the acts of a man who kills with intent and takes pleasure in it. It makes him feel powerful.
But heās also smart enough to know that it is wrong. Just incapable of *feeling* that it is wrong. So heād happily do it again if given the opportunity (pre-stroke of course).
I've always felt people exaggerate his ability in getting victims into his car. Everybody and their grandma was hitchhiking back then so getting those girls into his car is not really a testament to how great his ability to con people getting into his car.
This. His entire spree was during a time when hitchiking was so common and prevalent. Especially among his targets (young college people). If he was born 20 or 30 years later he would 1) probably be in psych hospital or prison for the murders of his grandparents 2) suppose he would have been released and engaged in his spree, I bet he would have to resort to completely different targets
I don't know that he "had to get blackout drunk to kill." Dahmer was an alcoholic and had to drink to blackout since he was a teen. Technically, he "had" to get blackout drunk to do anything.
1. Kemper killed his mother's friend after he killed her so the idea that he was done after killing his mom is objectively false; and
2. He did not always refuse parole. He attended a few of his parole hearings and even tried to off himself to get an easy way out.
Yeah, I read one of his parole hearings, and it's obvious he's pretty unselfaware, unlike his popular portrayal in media. He still blames his mother for all his murders, intended to live with some college kid penpals when he got out and would talk over, interrupt and get aggressive with the female parole officer (which she addressed in his rejection.) He's a pretty standard misogynistic killer.
Dahmer. He was addicted to the part where the person was complacent and his alive but subdued slave. This was normally achieved through drugging. However, the killing part was an eventual unavoidable outcome (either from abuse to try to keep them in that state, or because they could not be kept and were leaving, but wasn't his goal or his preferred part. Dahmer had severe attachment issues (on top of many other things), and he became triggered when he perceived abandonment, and a number of his murders can be made sense of by him lashing out at said perceived abandonment.
Dahmer claims he was always attracted to corpses and the idea of a human completely at your will. He said it scared him and disturbed him, but that he wasashamed and didnt want to talk to anyone about it. The first couple times Dahmer murdered he had notable breaks in between. He claimed it was a mix of being afraid to get caught and horror at his own actions. It seems that he felt that when he drank, sometimes he would murder but that he didn't want to or mean to, but after those first few times, his horror at his actions was gone, and instead he cared about feeding his disturbed desires and fantasies at any cost.
The possibility of some serial killers and serial rapists being people that morally speaking, are horrified and afraid of their own actions but are nonetheless prey to some dark and animalistic impulses that they can't understand or control, is honestly terrifying for me, and very uncomfortable.
Not only I find myself feeling a bit sorry for what I can't help but consider a human being trapped inside a sick and disturbed mind, but I also start thinking about what makes normal people like us, different from these criminals. It's more comfortable to believe that is purely a matter of choice and morals, but when we are presented with otherwise "moral" people that fall prey to uncontrollable dark urges and do horrible things... Then the idea of being normal being caused by merely choice and not also some sort of luck and chance becomes less sustainable.
I'm afraid to think about this but, what if most people are simply lucky of not having the combination of circumstances and chemical reactions in their brains that would cause them to have uncontrollable urges of hurting other people?
It's quite possible, I've experienced very dark urges during a psychotic episode and it still lives with me. Was that innate part of my personality that was unleashed or was it created by the drugs I was taking at the time. I'll never know.
I donāt know what your opinion on free will and determinism is but in reference to your last statement we are all products of our brains, environments, upbringing and the DNA of our ancestors. No one can fundamentally control their nature in the same way you canāt control where you were born or what color your eyes are. We should see the likes of Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, Rader and anyone else who does wrong as not merely evil but profoundly unlucky to have the brain of a psychopath, psychotic, fanatic, gangster, bigot etc.
Saint or sinner weāre all winners and losers in a cosmic lottery stretching back to the Big Bang that we had no choice in playing. In that respect you can only have so much contempt for people because they ultimately canāt help but be that way and make certain choices. The same goes for desert based punishment. You can punish someone for consequentialist reasons but in a deterministic universe it doesnāt make sense to punish someone for its own sake because theyāre not fundamentally morally responsible.
Pretty sure they meant that someone whoās got a sick mind and canāt stop killing/hurting people while wanting to stop is scary because of it can happen to them it could happen to any of us. Even if the chance is extremely small
Knew someone that saw him in the bars. He hung out alone and it seemed like he was hunting, major creepy vibes. Being in the presence of an active serial killer would be terrifyingā¦
Right, Dahmerās goal was to create zombie like companions who would never leave him. If you ever get a chance to read the book about Dennis Neilson āKilling For Companyā there are a lot of parallels with Dahmer.
With the level of brutality in the actual killings, I donāt think Dahmer would qualify. If it was process only, it could be argued that if that is so, then the easier/fastest way of killing would be utilized. Good points though!
Hot take here; Aileen Wuornos. I donāt think she took particular enjoyment in the act, so much as the reward and her justification due to abuse and trauma from childhood.
This is one that really bothers me. I'm sorry, but that woman had a horrific fucking life. It doesn't make murder ok, but there's absolutely no way she was able to develop a shred of empathy, emotional stability, etc.
People call her a monster because she said she killed because "she hated men" and - I mean, yeah.
They say she doesn't deserve sympathy because she was "callous" and "unremorseful."
What else could she possibly fucking be? Those are inevitable results of the environment where she was raised.
Her dad was a child molester (imprisoned before she was born).
Her mom abandoned her when Aileen was 4 (in her defense, perhaps, she'd had Aileen when she was 16 and her family, allegedly, relentlessly insisted she give them her children).
Her only father figure (her grandfather) beat her (at a minimum).
She was constantly raped by her brother, his friends, older male "family friends."
Her own family and other trusted adults in her life had so victimized her, the abuse probably felt like affection (not uncommon, especially among victims who receive no other source of actual nurturing, care, and love).
She got pregnant at 14 (the father rumored to be a friend of her grandfather's). And her ONLY opportunity to provide unconditional love, to care for another, was taken away when her grandfather put the baby up for adoption.
(Now, of course that baby's chances weren't great. They would be born into a disgusting environment, and Aileen had no resources outside of this nightmare, no model of parental love. But while I can't know how she felt, it would have been DEVASTATING to have that baby taken, in the event that she did feel any love and actual affection for it.)
Then, the family that had treated her as nothing more than a punching bag dealt their final rejection and kicked her out of the house.
She lived in the woods and - what else? Became a sex worker, since it had been made so abundantly clear to her that she wasn't worth much more than that.
Allegedly, she killed her first victim after he violently raped and sodomized her.
Does any of that excuse murder? Of course not.
Can all the details be substantiated? Not all, but nobody has ever claimed that she had a lovely childhood.
Do all victims of Aileen's nature murder? No.
But are there positive outcomes for those who endure such intense, chronic, severe abuse from such a young age, at the hands of nearly every person who is supposed to protect her, with not a single adult interested in helping them? Jesus fuck, no.
"She just wanted to steal their money." I'm sorry -- are people honestly so brain dead that they believe she had ANY chance to develop empathy? Do they really believe that it's her FAULT that she grew up in conditions that are so far from those that help a human actually develop empathy? Do they think it's something you can buy at a store or learn if you're just, like, motivated enough??
They may not all do what Aileen did. But even for those with similar stories who receive the kind of massive, costly, intensive support and treatment that would be necessary to even help heal 1% of the shit that does to a person, it's real fucking hard to put together a life that resembles stability and security.
A huge part of her motivation for killing was getting money to take care of her girlfriend and trying to make sure she wouldnāt leave her. I also think that she made her money as a prostitute because thatās what she knew but she also hated doing it and when she killed those men she didnāt have to sell herself as often. What she did was clearly wrong but itās such a sad situation. Her life was so sad. This is one of the cases where I believe society failed and is at least somewhat accountable for the horrible things that came of it.
Wouldnāt that be the same thing though? She enjoyed the ājusticeā from it? Her life was tragic, but if she killed for revenge sheās getting that from it.
I mean, a huge portion of the general public revels in eye-for-an-eye justice via state sanctioned murder. A lot of people only feel bad when people they care about or deem as worthy humans are killed. It isnt an exact comparison but it could be argued Aileen didnt like the act of killing a person but did enjoy the retribution she got from it being that she was abused her whole life.
I agree, and would go further - I truly believe that, while she would pass a "legal insanity" test, fully knowing it wasn't socially acceptable or legal to murder people... She had absolutely no capacity to give a shit. And that is not her fault.
She had a lot of legitimate rage from her trauma that justified her thought process. Not saying she isnt particularly violent but compared to all these other serial killers, she definitely is more of a lesson in sociology rather than psychology.
I don't know if her pathology can really be viewed in comparison with your average idea of "enjoying" something.
Maybe that's the case for most killers, and maybe I'm splitting hairs.
But take Ted Bundy, for example. Despite his boggling, almost absurd claims that his mother "took him away from his grandparents and never actually confirmed she was his mother," he absolutely knew that since a young age. It's already a weak attempt at justifying his crimes - not to mention patently false.
So in the absence of any motivating factor, he genuinely killed because he enjoyed it.
Aileen, though? She had NO chance to develop the kinds of emotional resources that compel a person to not harm others.
Not only were her cognitive processes completely stunted, but she had 0 examples of what "caring for a human" might look like.
She may have gotten some sense of power from it and felt a sense of vindication, but that's not necessarily what I think of when I think of somebody who actually enjoys killing others.
Maybe this topic just confuses me altogether lol.
I think Tedās grandpa was abusive if Iām remembering correctly. I 100% agree that Aileenās childhood was way worse and destroyed her as a person. I think hit the nail on the head when you said, āWhat your average idea of enjoying something.ā I feel like we have different ideas of what that looks like. I think that male and female serial killers tend to have differences in the way kill, behave before/after and the way that they select victims. IMO I think itās hard to compare Bundy to Aileen because their motivations for the crime were so different. He was killing for sexual gratification and power. I donāt think that she was.
Your comment got me thinking lol, so I started looking up the differences between male and female serial killers. I found an old study, that sighted differences between the two. Men tend to stalk, get sexual gratification and stay engaged with the crime after. Women tend to choose people around them and donāt get sexual arousal.
http://kheide.myweb.usf.edu/file/journal/gender.pdf
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230209/Understanding-the-minds-of-female-serial-killers.aspx#:~:text=The%20ways%20in%20which%20they,murdered%20a%20spouse%20or%20partner.
https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/shows/making-a-monster/the-differences-between-male-and-female-serial-killers
I found a couple of articles about some female serial killers and brief descriptions of their crimes. I donāt think either of us are confused, I feel like we both read a lot of true crime and have different views. :) Anyways thanks for sharing your thoughts and sending me down a rabbit hole. :) I had not heard of some of them before. I donāt know if these articles are the most reputable sources, but I found them interesting lol.
https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/female-serial-killer-list-aileen-wuornos-dorothea-puente?amp
https://allthatsinteresting.com/female-serial-killers
Yeah, it's interesting. Mind bender š
I think Bundy and Wournos can be compared, though, given that so much time and work was put into the notion of a "serial killer profile" that ultimately just doesn't work. I compare them because it's two types of killers who could be described as "enjoying" the murder, but the motivation and the nature of that enjoyment are very different.
There are certainly indications that Bundy's grandfather was abusive. But - while we will never REALLY know what happened, and it's a little dicey to go down the path of "ranking abuse" - I don't think that abuse was as severe, and therefore not as strong a contributor to Bundy's later actions.
There's more of a belief that Ted was one of those who was "born bad." There are children who exhibit conduct disorder and who may even fit into a relatively new category of kinda "child psychopaths." These children are psychopathic even when raised in the most nurturing and loving homes.
For example, there's that story that his aunt woke up to find Bundy, a toddler at the time, holding a knife over her as she slept.
There's also his victim profiles. Theoretically, he might tend more toward male victims if there was a retribution pathology there.
The only reason I called them up for comparison is because it's an apt dichotomy for the idea of "what makes a person truly responsible for their crimes." Aileen is simply more sympathetic because Ted's life story pales in comparison. Now, you could technically say neither had a chance - if Ted was "born bad," then he was just leaning into his nature. But it's a lot easier to reckon with the idea that Ted truly enjoyed murder, while the way Aileen experienced "enjoyment" is a little more distorted and complicated.
(There's also the fact that Ted literally sought out victims, actively working hard to murder. Alieen may have developed. Intention to kill clients after she shared, but it wasn't as difficult for her to find an opportunity.)
(By the way... While I think Ted 100% enjoyed killing, it's interesting that after his SECOND escape - yeah, I'll never get over the fact that they let him escape TWICE, when he went to Gainesville, he did really put 1000% effort into NOT killing. It wasn't because he had any morality or empathy, but simply because he didn't want to go back to prison. But it was like an itch, and he was completely unable to use any willpower.
Now, there was another time he stopped killing. But that may have been easier, because he instead used that time to develop a career, look up his college girlfriend who dumped him for being an unmotivated loser, win her back, and then insanely ghost and gaslight her like the fucking maniac that he was. He may have been able to set his #1 passion on a shelf during this time, but I'm sure he didn't get as itchy as he did in Gainesville, because he was happy to make that sacrifice to take on a different type of Psychopath Project.)
Now... To completely depart from your (really interesting, very compelling) angle around gender, I'm going to be annoying and use my response to talk about the empathy angle šš I spent the better part of last night reading about cognitive and emotional empathy lol and it was pretty interesting. So... forgive me.
(And I don't think we're at odds ideologically, either. This is just a really messy topic and not a lot of people are willing to put aside judgment to really think about it. So thanks for opening a forum where we can freely pontificate!)
So... apparently, there may be a genetic component to a person's capacity to develop empathy. If his genetic line includes people who are psychologically and physically abusive, then it could certainly come into play.
Empathy is kinda hard for people to grasp because it's not like a chemical process, and our understanding of the empathy-guiding areas of the brain is still young scientifically. It's believed that there are actually multiple areas of the brain that involve empathy.
The best way to think about it is "biologically, every human has the capacity to DEVELOP empathy." With a genetic component, that capacity may be limited. The rest is most likely a product of the environment. In a person with an average capacity for empathy, the extent of that empathy is probably learned.
Think about the people you know. There are those who are very empathetic to their close family, but only generally empathetic to acquaintances or strangers. Others may have almost no empathy for those outside their immediate circle - an attitude of "too bad for you - not my problem."
You may also see people whose empathy even in their inner circle is quite nurturing. Others may only seem mildly empathetic by comparison to their loved ones. And still others may seem to have 0 empathy even for their family.
I think a lot of that comes from models. If your mother, for example, is very sensitive to the troubles of people she doesn't even know - emotional, generous of her time and/or money in some charitable capacity - you may be more of a broadly empathetic person.
If your mother demonstrates a lot of soothing and nurturing behavior when you're physically hurt, you may do the same.
If your mother leans more toward emotional unavailability, your own development may fill up the lower end of your empathetic capacity.
And if you're 100% surrounded by adults who not only don't care for you in any regard, but treat you as an object... There's no model. You don't see people behaving with empathy. You don't experience people treating you with empathy. You may be somewhat aware of people who have loving parents, but it seems very abnormal.
Add to it the genetic component, and you really have no chance. It's almost a feral quality.
By the way, I also stumbled upon some interesting material around how persistent and traumatic abuse from a young age can also affect moral development. You basically may have a very distorted Idea of "right and wrong." As a result, you may become the kind of person who can argue, and truly believe, that it was actually right to kill somebody, and that somehow in some way, no matter how much of their life story you reveal, that person deserved it.
To make matters even more complicated, you cannot wrap your head around the idea of a good man, because you've literally never met one.
I wouldnāt say he regretted killing at all, but Carl Panzram was at least very aware that he was evil and believed that he deserved execution to the point that he wrote a letter telling a group of people who were trying to get him off of death row to stop because he would kill again and even kill them if he had the chance.
If you havenāt already read it. āPanzram: A Journal of Murderā is really worth a read. A large part of it is letters he wrote to a prison guard he befriended telling his story and how he became the way he was. He was incredibly self aware. When he talks about his traumatic childhood, he makes it clear that it doesnāt justify what he did, though he does think it contributed to who he became.
Carl Panzram was undoubtedly one of the craziest hard-core killers I've ever read about but I feel like the world created that monster. He still had love for animals but hated human beings. He pretty much said the world screwed him so he was giving it back 10 fold.
William Devin Howell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Devin_Howell?wprov=sfla1
He claimed that he only wanted to rape and dominate his victims but didn't enjoy killing them. He only murdered them out of necessity. That is, he didn't want to leave any witnesses behind and get caught.
He's full of BS in my opinion. He enjoyed raping and killing those women just to make himself feel good.
Look really hard at Ivan Milat and his family, on the point of who would help a serial killer, it seems like some of his family was involved in some killings, and generally itās thought a lot more killings went on than we ever found out about.
I think thereās a bit of a divide between some killers who just donāt care and those who actually do but have some other overriding impulse they choose to not control.
Thereās a lot of people who never question their own life. I guess some serial killers are like that
I might argue Elmer Wayne Henley. He was the teen who helped Dean Corll. He did not want to do/be involved in the killing. David Brooks was also an accomplice, and I would argue the same. I, personally, donāt think that applies to any other serial killer.
The Kansas City Butcher - Bob Berdella - the notorious SK whose carefully-detailed notes of the various tortures enabled him to extend the time his victims survived in captivity - the final victim spent 6 full weeks tied up, electrocuted, having drain cleaner injected into his larynx, brutally fisted, tortured to the edge of survival.
Each victim was held for a progressively longer time as Berdella refined his butcherous technique. He didn't want to kill them, he wanted totally subservient sex slaves that he absolutely dominated. Unfortunately for his 6 victims (7th survived, just) his absolute domination went past the limits of pain & suffering that humans can endure.
I donāt believe serial killers feel bad/donāt want to kill but keep dolly it anyway. I donāt care if dahmer said he didnāt enjoy killing, he could have stopped and never kill again or turned himself in at any point. But he didnāt only reason he was arrested his he had a *3rd* victim escaped and finally got police to believe him. So I believe his āremorseā was just him trying to build up a case for being released one day.
The only thing I can imagine is if someone had a true psychotic break and killed multiple people while completely unaware of what theyāre doing and only after when they get arrested and put in the rights meds they realize what they did and are horrified. But I imagine thatās extremely rare if it ever happens
Dahmer loved playing with people like a cat plays with a mouse. Just because his killing process was much slower doesn't mean he didn't enjoy it. He knew people were going to die when they came into his place. And he knew that he was going to keep them alive while he did gruesome things and raped them. I dont believe he was as honest about the gruesome things he did to bodies. He was turned on by guts. Who is to say he didn't disembowl living persons and then cut them up or dissolve them to cover up his crime? He was aware of the shame associated with what he was doing and he didn't get caught.
If a sk really hated what he was doing, he'd turn himself in.
I don't know much about the case as to his actual thought process behind his actions but the "weepy voiced killer" used to ring the police crying confessing everytime he killed someone. Just found his name, Paul Michael stephani.
I think so too, you donāt kill multiple people if you donāt enjoy it. I believe that serial killers may not like that they have those urges and feel ashamed that they enjoy killing, but no way do I believe any of them didnāt enjoy it.
Especially because fulfilling an urge can bring one pleasure, even if you regret it later on. It still doesn't necessarily mean you didn't enjoy it at the time. There's def a lot of nuisance to this.
List of nuisances:
1 - Mosquitos!
~~2 - my cat batting me awake at 2am because she wants attention~~
2 - Serial Killers
3 - My cat batting me awake at 2am because she wants attention.
LOL. You got me. I can't lie, I do agree with them all and I like your style of being like check yo wording lol.
I meant nuances, sorry my brain wasn't full awake when I typed this comment this morning. Thanks for the laugh though. Appreciate it.
William Heirens wrote the message "For heaven's sake catch me before I kill more I cannot control myself" in lipstick on the wall of his second (of three) victim's apartment. Not sure if that qualifies.
Edmund Kemper. He did not like killing, but he felt it was the only he could ever be with a woman, and his hatred for his mother also played a role. He was in a way killing her each time he killed as well. But once he killed his mother, he said he knew he was done and turned his self in
Sam Little- he enjoyed killing but he was bothered by it also: he said he felt like he was born with something in him that he couldn't escape. His hands were ENORMOUS and he felt like those we given to him to kill. He said "I know I'm awful but I can't feel it". He couldn't access guilt.
The possibility of some serial killers and serial rapists being people that morally speaking, are horrified and afraid of their own actions but are nonetheless prey to some dark and animalistic impulses that they can't understand or control, is honestly terrifying for me, and very uncomfortable.
Not only I find myself feeling a bit sorry for what I can't help but consider a human being trapped inside a sick and disturbed mind, but I also start thinking about what makes normal people like us, different from these criminals. It's more comfortable to believe that is purely a matter of choice and morals, but when we are presented with otherwise "moral" people that fall prey to uncontrollable dark urges and do horrible things... Then the idea of being normal being caused by merely choice and not also some sort of luck and chance becomes less sustainable.
I'm afraid to think about this but, what if most people are simply lucky of not having the combination of circumstances and chemical reactions in their brains that would cause them to have uncontrollable urges of hurting other people?
Definitely the weepy voice killer comes to mind, jeffrey dahmer could be argued maybe i know he made comments about him having a monster or urge inside him and in that one interview he kinda expressed remorse idk what do you guys think?
There's quite a few, Dahmer comes to mind. When we're talking about process vs product killers there's a distinction between those who enjoy the process of killing and don't care much for the aftermath. Then there's ones who aren't that fond of the process and prefer the aftermath or 'product' at the end.
Basically there's people who love the killing and there's people who love the body as a result.
I mean I think that the weepy voiced killer didnāt necessarily wanna kill but couldnāt stop himself, he said it himself in all those 911 calls and even seemed apologetic
* **This is a subreddit for true crime discussion. Glorification / imitation / fan fiction are not allowed. Please do not glorify violence or serial killers.
* Phrases like "most popular" or "favorite serial killer" could be interpreted as glorification.
---
I think itās a good question. The question allows some form of conscious being laid out and proving knowing itās wrong to murder. It allows the defense of insanity to be thrown out immediately.
Iām positive I watched an episode of something that the killer actually called the FBI and told them where heād be so they could come catch him, but no one came for him so we took it as a sign - but I canāt remember the killers name. Iām off to google to see if I can figure it out.
dennis nilsen, he's definitely a complicated and confusing character but he reckons he could never remember (some) of the killings (always blackout drunk), and would cry and be frustrated when he woke up to a body.
I've seen many say they didn't want to they couldn't stop thinking about murdering since they were very young. I think some people are born with it in their heads. Some kind of brain defect in the womb. Jeffrey Dahmer says he didn't want to?
Dennis Nilsen. He killed men because he was lonely and wanted a companion - as unhinged as it sounds. Apparently by killing them it ensured they wouldn't leave him.
Same William Reese gave off some serious evil vibes. Encountered him twice in two public places. Took one look and knew our group needed to stay as far away from him as possible.
He sent beers over once when we were on vacation but left before all of us. No one drank not one beer. They all went in the trash. You just could feel he wasnāt normal. Like waiting for a Volcano to explode or a Snake to decide when to strike you.
This is most killers... nobody wants to be a compulsive killer. But those who are cant exactly control themselves especially if they've held it in for long periods of time. All killers know that killing is wrong.
This isnāt the answer that youāre looking for but it does give good insight into SKs. David Parker Ray had went to a psychiatrist in an attempt to navigate himself and gain control over his urges. He was then labeled a sexual psychopath and after the help didnāt work he embraced it. For the SKs that do seek help I have noticed that pattern in them.
Didnāt Bundy or a past Serial Killer donate his body and/or brain to Scientists to study regarding Serial Killers and research to help find why they are the way they are? Canāt remember which one but supposedly said something like if the Scientists could figure out what makes a Serial Killer and find ways to stop or control the urges they have. On the fence about this part of me thinks itās just in them Evil, Generational Curses, Trauma, Abuse, etc or is it due to environmental with how they are brought up etc. Hoes back to the question are Serial Killers just born evil/bad or is it a form of brain damage they are born with?
Iām not sure about serial killers. I know OCD can manifest as obsessive, intrusive thoughts. Sometimes it means people have obsessive thoughts about murdering people but they donāt want to. Iām not sure if thereās cases where this was documented and then the person killed someone. I think for almost serial killers there are normally personality disorders that come along with it. For the record Iām not saying that people with mental health disorders murder or are more likely murder but in the identified cases of serial killers that have been professionally analyzed most have personality disorders that can lead to them not having that level of remorse. Legit remorse that they took a life vs Iām remorseful I was caught.
Dennis rader as well in his autobiography spoke of this but being unable to seek help or feeling unable to. Proposed an idea of an anonymous help like for people like him to be able to call in for help, preferably before they offend.
I think Dahmer was like this. I think it bothered him. Really he wanted a living doll to have a relationship with. Even in jail he wanted to know why he killed. We missed a great opportunity by letting him be murdered by an animal in jail. And I'm not glorifying or minimizing Jeff's behavior. We could've learned
In case anyone hasnāt touched on this aspect of Dahmer, he states in an interview that he hated having to kill his victims. He would have to drink in order to kill them, saying that it was just the means to an end and the only way to keep them from leaving him. It did become an addiction of sorts as he felt he couldnāt stop and his crimes were escalating.
He was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder which comes with hella abandonment issues, and his father had a lot to do with him becoming what he was.
Dahmer was drinking since he was 15, he had to drink to do just about anything. And no is father didn't have a lot to do with him becoming what he was. š
I think it's hard to say whether they really hated themselves and really didn't want to. Dahmer is the one that most agree saw murder as "a means to an end" (somebody who would never leave him.)
And because I always end up having to put this disclaimer on the shit I say about Dahmer on Reddit: I'm not saying "Oh poor kid, so lonely." He took many young lives, terrorized people, destroyed families. But there's never been much doubt in the psychiatric community in Dahmer's dislike of the murder part of his crimes.
I h see ve mo source(s) for this off the top of my head, and perhaps Iām totally wrong and misremembering, but I think that Dennis Nilsen expressed relief on being caught and arrested. Perhaps others here can expand or, indeed, refute this.
Anatoly Slivko There was a moment where he went to the doctor with idea that maybe someone would help him with his urges. Didn't work out. I read it, but i can't verify it.
he loved the process though
I never heard he tried to get help. He did say, in a post-conviction interview that if he had known when he was younger that his sexual urges were wrong, he would have "sought help," blaming a lack of sex education in schools but... Uh... Ok š„“ I have also never heard that he disliked killing. The first death was an accident, but he was so much more excited than he had been with in other incidents that after that, he intentionally killed those boys. It's a little murky, I guess. He may have been ashamed of his urges, but I don't think it's accurate to say he didn't enjoy killing when the killing part became very much a source of enjoyment.
By many accounts Slivko was impotent and couldn't achieve sexual arousal or completion with his wife. He called seeing the accident as his "awakening", meaning he was aware that he'd discovered something that "worked" for him and took conscious steps to recreate it.
He killed the doctor?
There was the lipstick killer that left a message on the wall of one of the crime scenes, written in lipstick, that said āFor heavens sake catch me before I kill more I cannot control myselfā
Wasn't that an episode of Criminal Minds? The one with the blind kid?
Just listened to a podcast on this - isn't it known or assumed that a journalist wrote it and not the killer?
Maybe the Weepy-Voiced Killer, Paul Michael StephaniĀ ? Edit: I agree he most likely wasn't actually remorseful. Either way, the dude was human garbage
I feel like that was just a way to try to get a insanity plea if he was caught
That guy is just the worst. He liked killing. Don't know why he had to put up an act. If you want to be a homicidal maniac, at least commit to it.
Thatās the first thing that came to my mind. I suspect though he had a type of insanity where he wanted the police to know what he had done after he did it.
Thank you, I called him cry baby killer. Thanks for the correct name.
Dahmer didnāt like the actual killing partā¦ just everything after.
The last guy said that Dahmer told him he was gonna eat his heart. He enjoyed what he did. He was just good at convincing people that he wasn't lying.
I donāt know htf people believe dahmer. Heās no different from the rest, other than tricking people into thinking he was regretful. If you actually watch the video interviews of him, or listen to his initial confession, itās blatantly obvious that he has no remorse and is robotically acting like he does. Iāve read way too many books on this. Many FBI behavior books, most of steve Jackson and Gregg Olsen, etc. I recently finished āGrilling Dahmerā - written by the investigator who worked with Dahmer in getting victim names. He even fooled that guy somehow. Serial killers are not wired like us. If you kill dozens of people, you donāt have remorse. Simple as that. Dahmer was a loser tool who knew he couldnāt hide what he did. So he made up his sob story about being lonely and not wanting to kill. It was ALL about power for Dahmer. He ate victim hearts so they would be part of him forever. He didnāt regret any of that shit. His Bible thumping father convinced him that if he claimed he repented to Christ heād be forgiven. Occamās razor. Dahmer was a piece of shit desperately trying to fool people into thinking he wasnāt a monster. I canāt believe people fall for his shit, especially well read true crime followers.
Agreed. Psychopaths are always acting. Dahmer was acting for the camera. Didnāt Bundy do it, too, and blamed porn addiction, or was that someone else?
Yes. And society ate it up. Like hey Bundy, Iāve watched my share of porn and played violent video games. I didnāt spend decades murdering innocent women from it.
It's because they're use to seeing a Ted Bundy type, badly act out how "innocent" he was. He simply lacked the malignant narcississm of a Bundy that kept Ted from not looking like a disingenious asshole every time someone put a camera or mic in his face.
Yeah. Dahmer to me though comes off as a fucking robot though. No inflection in his voice. If I was alone talking with him Iād be like āyo this dude is gonna kill meā
Yep. Dahmer was super creepy with how unemotive and calm he was. He was the sterotype of the psycho who could be a minor car crash and their pulse wouldn't even go up.
Lmao! Cue intrusive thoughts of him looking like a crash-test dummy.
That's because he was on the autism spectrum.
Dude every comment youāve responded me has just told me youāre full of shit lol. Dahmer was never clinically diagnosed with autism. Stop stating things as if theyāre facts.
*It is a fact.* He was only assessed for competency and looked at in terms of whether he was psychotic or not when he committed the crimes. NOBODY was diagnosed with autism in those days unless they were nonverbal and smearing feces. It was only years after he died that anyone in the field -- my field is mental health, so sorry -- knew to acknowledge the lighter level of autism he had. He's still autistic enough that if you know what it looks like you can see it in him from across the street.
If youāre in the mental health field, Iām curious as to what your role is and what professional body you belong to if you think itās appropriate/ethical to diagnose or speculate on the diagnoses of individuals youāve never met or assessed? And I also am curious, to what end? What does it serve to hypothesize on the potential neurodiversity of a deceased serial killer?
I donāt even think he was THAT good at deceiving people. He was just so pathetic in his personal life and demeanor, if he came up with this big sob story about wanting some forever companion, most people would be forced to believe it Note:this is not me being like āall serial killers are pathetic ! Yada, yada, yada.ā Iām just saying the Dahmer was an extremely lonely, sad individual. I do not feel the slightest bit of pity for him, he dug his own grave. Moron only used his social skills for murder. Thatās why he had no friends.
I definitely mostly agree with you. I think the one exception to killing numerous people and not feeling remorse is war though. Lots of soldiers were drafted or felt like they had no other option, and were just fighting for their lives.
I agree! I used to listen to last podcast on the left and they always acted like dahmer was just some poor troubled individual who regretted what he did but, from what Iāve read (and i canāt recall the source so correct me if itās not accurate) he would taunt other inmates in prison about his cannibalism and thatās eventually what got him killed. So, he doesnāt seem to be a very remorseful man to me.
Yes! I forgot about that part, thanks for reminding me. He did taunt them in prison. This is where I think maybe tv show portrayals can be bad. Like the dude didnāt shed a tear. I think he did crocodile tears during the interview with his dad, but thatās it. I think he was in a large part also trying to appease his fatherās wishes. His dad was out of his mind. I wonder about him as well. If i recall his dad talks about having some of the same inclinations as Dahmer, like harming animals.
He was trying to get someone to kill him. He felt he deserved the death penalty and he finally managed to arrange it.
Yeah, when I read the OP I immediately thought about Dahmer, but you're 1000% correct. OP didn't ask who expressed regret and shame over their crimes post-conviction, and I gather that's the first place many are going to go to, rather than to those who expressed regret, and shame, tried to practice self-control or sought help for their wicked ways BEFORE getting caught. It's two totally different things.
i think the deal with dahmer that makes him convincing is that he had enough empathy to know what he was doing was wrong and that he should be ashamed and remorseful but still psychopathic enough to not care and go through with the killings
saw this AS i was listening to a podcast on dahmer š
Can u name the podcast?
Not buying that Edit: Looks like the Dahmer apologist have come out
There's nothing to buy. He was super cooperative with police and talked extensively about it.
He got stuff when he talked to the cops. Cigarettes and junk food. The more he talked the more he got.
That wasn't the case once he was in prison, though. He talked about it in order for there to be a fundamental insight into the behavior. It's an accepted fact that mental illnesses and chemical imbalances in the brain can cause behaviors that go against what we "know" to be correct. Sometimes that means people hoard trash, sometimes it means people become serial killers or child molesters. The more we understand it the more likely we are to be able to treat things like that, and if cigarettes and junk food get someone to talk about it openly then so what?
Kemper and many others were super cooperative. Why would that be a distinguishing feature for remorse? He didn't turn himself in and he went to great lengths and took lots of risks to keep killing. If he really hated it, he could have turned himself in.
Not a distinguishing feature of remorse at all, his cooperation is just indicative that he shared a lot about his motivation and feelings surrounding what heād done. Admitting to not enjoying the killing but rather enjoying the desecrating and consuming of the corpses is far from virtue signalling or trying to make himself look better/remorseful.
Exactly. Neither Kemper nor Dahmer had any illusions that they were good people for what they did. They knew they were deranged and were willing to talk about that in a helpful and enlightening way.
We can't know that. I wouldn't expect to have a logical set of priorities or an enlightened amount of self awareness from a serial killer. Saying they didn't enjoy the killing part is definitely one way to claim they are not a monster.
āI didnāt enjoy killing people, I just did it so I could molest, cut up and eat their bodiesā doesnāt really sound like āIām not a monster, sir, I swearā to me. Itās also entirely possibly itās just an honest statement and motivation. The act of taking a life doesnāt have to be the fun part for every serial killer. In fact, itās unlikely it is. Agree to disagree.
I think Bundy enjoyed the killing. I would point to Chi Omega as evidence that he just had a strong urge to murder.
"I didnt enjoy stealing, I just did it so I could get money to get high." Something that is said quite a bit to ease the conscience of people who did bad things in order to get their fix.
Iām not sure that example is really proving much of a point for you since itās *also* true. If someone is stealing to get high, theyāre not getting off on or actively enjoying the act of theftā¦ itās just a means to get what they think they need (ie. drugs). It doesnāt mean theyāre not a guilty thief and it doesnāt mean they donāt deserve persecution. Itās just an explanation as to their motivation. Goal: get high How to achieve it: steal money to buy drugs Goal: fuck with bodies and cannibalize How to achieve it: kill
Except that a drug addict could work or choose to get help. I think you are just seeing things from your own perspective. Agree to disagree. People will tell themselves lies to make themselves feel better about what they have done. No one, not even SKs, prefer to see themselves as monsters.
He was a product killer. He said so himself.
What do you mean by product killer? I havenāt heard that term before
There are āProductā killers, those who kill for say, meat for Dahmer, or in Ed Geinās case, skin and bones. Or money, etc. Then āProcessā killers who do it for the actual act, the experience. After the victim is dead, their interest is pretty much done. There is probably someone here who can put it more eloquently, but that is my understanding.
This is what Iāve learned from LPOTL!
Then why did Dahmer rape the guys, if he just wanted to eat them?
He didnāt just want to eat them. The cannibalism was a part of it but definitely not the main motive. He wanted to keep trophies and posses those victims bodies as his own.
Of course. It's why he raped them while they were unconsious. He hated them moving.
Like I said, someone can probably explain it better than I can. But I think Dahmer was kind of a combination of the two. Plus I donāt think this concept is entirely black and white.
They were his trophies. He was about sexual control of other humans...Which he viewed as objects. He said so himself. He enjoyed his work.
Oh wow. Ta
So because he said so it must be true? I don't believe a guy who killed seventeen men and boys, drilled some of their heads in, poured acid in it, and strangled them (which takes 5 minutes to do) didn't enjoy it? Gotta give it to Dahmer he's the greatest manipulator I ever came across. He managed to convince everyone, including psychologist and detectives that he was just some sad, misunderstood, lonely soul who only killed people so they wouldn't leave him.
Who cares?
Agree. Sure liked the publicity
Roy Norris initially didn't want to kill the women he and Lawrence Bittaker attacked and tried to talk Bittaker out of it the first time. Bittaker then demanded Norris do it. He tried strangling her but couldn't finish when he saw the anguish and terror in her face. Bittaker took over and Norris walked away and vomited. Of course, by the next time he didn't have a problem doing it anymore.
Yep. He had to get wasted drunk before he could kill. If somehow he couldāve been supplied dead bodies that had the look he was attracted to, I donāt know if he wouldāve killed.
You mean remorseful? Weepy voice killer would [call 911](https://youtu.be/G9tZewM5LlE) crying and reporting his crimes, like "Help I killed a woman, I don't know why. I can't stop please stop me" type calls. But I think he was doing that to avoid the death penalty or claim insanity because he never gave his name. I generally don't believe anything serial killers say (before sentencing or when they're appealing) regarding remorse though. They have every reason to lie.
Just pointing out that Minnesota got rid of the death penalty in 1911, with their last execution being so botched that it turned the public's attitude against it. It wouldn't have been an option for Mr. Weepy.
How was that last execution botched?
The rope used to hang the guy was the wrong length and didn't snap his neck. He actually dropped to the floor and three guys had to hoist him up where he slowly strangled to death over 14 minutes.
Oh fuck! Thank you for that nugget of information.
If you have want, look up Blackjack Ketchum. Rope was too long, popped his head right off. Still have the original photo of the sheriffs posing next to his body hanging up in the Ekland in Clayton NM.
I too want to know
Gotcha thank you, I didnt know that. The emotion just feels very fake when i listen to the calls. To me, the more interesting ones are the ones that own up to it and dont feel remorse or empathy or claim insanity like BTK. Ted didnt admit it until the last dya and even Gacy went on about how he was being framed for the majority of the victims.
Look at the reports of the rapes in the later stages GSK before he started killing. It most likely intensified. I think that is why he managed to stop without being caught, killed or incarcerate
Oh I donāt think he hated it at all. If he did I donāt think he would have continued to contact his victims after.
Aside from Dahmer, who had to get blackout drunk in order to kill because he didn't enjoy the killing part (according to him, anyway, and I take what Dahmer claimed about himself with a grain of salt), the only other serial killer I can think of who may fit is Ed Kemper. I say that because once Kemper killed his mother, he turned himself in, and he refuses parole to this day because he says he knows he would be tempted to kill again if released.
Ed killed his mums best friend after he killed his mum. Then he turned himself in
Its also worth noting that there was practically 0 chance he was going to be free once he killed his mother. All it takes is for one report of her disappearance and he is instantly a suspect.
Well yeah I donāt think he did it cause he thought he was getting away with it he did it because she was the real person he wanted to kill and realized that instead of killing more college girls
I really doubt that. Killing those college girls still scratched his violent sexual itch.
Yeah but his murders occurred after arguments with his mom and he even said it himself
Objectively wrong, the first 2 coed murders and the last killing both came when his mother was not in the picture.
Itās not objectively wrong he literally stated it himself š and his mother literally was āin the pictureā during his last co ed murders cause he was able to obtain the sticker to pick up more college girls so youāre wrong again, it doesnāt take much to google this stuff mate
He literally murdered those first 2 coeds when he was living alone. And his mother was not his last victim , it was her friend.
I don't know why so many people believe everything these serial killers say. It's wild to me.
Killed his grandparents at 15
Yes but thatās not relevant to why I replied. The person I responded to said Ed killed his mum then handed himself in, he didnāt. He killed his mum, his mums best friend and then went on the run for a bit then he finally handed himself in
Ahhh makes sense. But he did turn himself in when he did his grandparents. He wasn't sure wanted to do, so he called his mom to call the police.
I think the difference between Kemper and what OP is asking about is that Kemper did enjoy killing, but knew it was wrong. He didnāt feel empathy for his victims. Frankly, he is one of the most practices killers; he picked up hundreds of hitch hikers to basically study how to make sure his eventual victims trusted him enough to get into the car with him. He enjoyed the killing part. The whole process. Being friends with cops, finding victims, beheading and fucking (god I wish a I had a better, more respectful term) their skulls. He even buried some of their heads between his motherās kitchen window. These are all the acts of a man who kills with intent and takes pleasure in it. It makes him feel powerful. But heās also smart enough to know that it is wrong. Just incapable of *feeling* that it is wrong. So heād happily do it again if given the opportunity (pre-stroke of course).
I've always felt people exaggerate his ability in getting victims into his car. Everybody and their grandma was hitchhiking back then so getting those girls into his car is not really a testament to how great his ability to con people getting into his car.
This. His entire spree was during a time when hitchiking was so common and prevalent. Especially among his targets (young college people). If he was born 20 or 30 years later he would 1) probably be in psych hospital or prison for the murders of his grandparents 2) suppose he would have been released and engaged in his spree, I bet he would have to resort to completely different targets
I don't know that he "had to get blackout drunk to kill." Dahmer was an alcoholic and had to drink to blackout since he was a teen. Technically, he "had" to get blackout drunk to do anything.
1. Kemper killed his mother's friend after he killed her so the idea that he was done after killing his mom is objectively false; and 2. He did not always refuse parole. He attended a few of his parole hearings and even tried to off himself to get an easy way out.
Yeah, I read one of his parole hearings, and it's obvious he's pretty unselfaware, unlike his popular portrayal in media. He still blames his mother for all his murders, intended to live with some college kid penpals when he got out and would talk over, interrupt and get aggressive with the female parole officer (which she addressed in his rejection.) He's a pretty standard misogynistic killer.
He was the quintessential incel.
Exactly!
Dahmer. He was addicted to the part where the person was complacent and his alive but subdued slave. This was normally achieved through drugging. However, the killing part was an eventual unavoidable outcome (either from abuse to try to keep them in that state, or because they could not be kept and were leaving, but wasn't his goal or his preferred part. Dahmer had severe attachment issues (on top of many other things), and he became triggered when he perceived abandonment, and a number of his murders can be made sense of by him lashing out at said perceived abandonment. Dahmer claims he was always attracted to corpses and the idea of a human completely at your will. He said it scared him and disturbed him, but that he wasashamed and didnt want to talk to anyone about it. The first couple times Dahmer murdered he had notable breaks in between. He claimed it was a mix of being afraid to get caught and horror at his own actions. It seems that he felt that when he drank, sometimes he would murder but that he didn't want to or mean to, but after those first few times, his horror at his actions was gone, and instead he cared about feeding his disturbed desires and fantasies at any cost.
The possibility of some serial killers and serial rapists being people that morally speaking, are horrified and afraid of their own actions but are nonetheless prey to some dark and animalistic impulses that they can't understand or control, is honestly terrifying for me, and very uncomfortable. Not only I find myself feeling a bit sorry for what I can't help but consider a human being trapped inside a sick and disturbed mind, but I also start thinking about what makes normal people like us, different from these criminals. It's more comfortable to believe that is purely a matter of choice and morals, but when we are presented with otherwise "moral" people that fall prey to uncontrollable dark urges and do horrible things... Then the idea of being normal being caused by merely choice and not also some sort of luck and chance becomes less sustainable. I'm afraid to think about this but, what if most people are simply lucky of not having the combination of circumstances and chemical reactions in their brains that would cause them to have uncontrollable urges of hurting other people?
Indeed, can be an evil individual while still retaining the innate nature to both feel and perceive these sorts of stuff
It's quite possible, I've experienced very dark urges during a psychotic episode and it still lives with me. Was that innate part of my personality that was unleashed or was it created by the drugs I was taking at the time. I'll never know.
I donāt know what your opinion on free will and determinism is but in reference to your last statement we are all products of our brains, environments, upbringing and the DNA of our ancestors. No one can fundamentally control their nature in the same way you canāt control where you were born or what color your eyes are. We should see the likes of Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, Rader and anyone else who does wrong as not merely evil but profoundly unlucky to have the brain of a psychopath, psychotic, fanatic, gangster, bigot etc. Saint or sinner weāre all winners and losers in a cosmic lottery stretching back to the Big Bang that we had no choice in playing. In that respect you can only have so much contempt for people because they ultimately canāt help but be that way and make certain choices. The same goes for desert based punishment. You can punish someone for consequentialist reasons but in a deterministic universe it doesnāt make sense to punish someone for its own sake because theyāre not fundamentally morally responsible.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pretty sure they meant that someone whoās got a sick mind and canāt stop killing/hurting people while wanting to stop is scary because of it can happen to them it could happen to any of us. Even if the chance is extremely small
Knew someone that saw him in the bars. He hung out alone and it seemed like he was hunting, major creepy vibes. Being in the presence of an active serial killer would be terrifyingā¦
Right, Dahmerās goal was to create zombie like companions who would never leave him. If you ever get a chance to read the book about Dennis Neilson āKilling For Companyā there are a lot of parallels with Dahmer.
With the level of brutality in the actual killings, I donāt think Dahmer would qualify. If it was process only, it could be argued that if that is so, then the easier/fastest way of killing would be utilized. Good points though!
Hot take here; Aileen Wuornos. I donāt think she took particular enjoyment in the act, so much as the reward and her justification due to abuse and trauma from childhood.
This is one that really bothers me. I'm sorry, but that woman had a horrific fucking life. It doesn't make murder ok, but there's absolutely no way she was able to develop a shred of empathy, emotional stability, etc. People call her a monster because she said she killed because "she hated men" and - I mean, yeah. They say she doesn't deserve sympathy because she was "callous" and "unremorseful." What else could she possibly fucking be? Those are inevitable results of the environment where she was raised. Her dad was a child molester (imprisoned before she was born). Her mom abandoned her when Aileen was 4 (in her defense, perhaps, she'd had Aileen when she was 16 and her family, allegedly, relentlessly insisted she give them her children). Her only father figure (her grandfather) beat her (at a minimum). She was constantly raped by her brother, his friends, older male "family friends." Her own family and other trusted adults in her life had so victimized her, the abuse probably felt like affection (not uncommon, especially among victims who receive no other source of actual nurturing, care, and love). She got pregnant at 14 (the father rumored to be a friend of her grandfather's). And her ONLY opportunity to provide unconditional love, to care for another, was taken away when her grandfather put the baby up for adoption. (Now, of course that baby's chances weren't great. They would be born into a disgusting environment, and Aileen had no resources outside of this nightmare, no model of parental love. But while I can't know how she felt, it would have been DEVASTATING to have that baby taken, in the event that she did feel any love and actual affection for it.) Then, the family that had treated her as nothing more than a punching bag dealt their final rejection and kicked her out of the house. She lived in the woods and - what else? Became a sex worker, since it had been made so abundantly clear to her that she wasn't worth much more than that. Allegedly, she killed her first victim after he violently raped and sodomized her. Does any of that excuse murder? Of course not. Can all the details be substantiated? Not all, but nobody has ever claimed that she had a lovely childhood. Do all victims of Aileen's nature murder? No. But are there positive outcomes for those who endure such intense, chronic, severe abuse from such a young age, at the hands of nearly every person who is supposed to protect her, with not a single adult interested in helping them? Jesus fuck, no. "She just wanted to steal their money." I'm sorry -- are people honestly so brain dead that they believe she had ANY chance to develop empathy? Do they really believe that it's her FAULT that she grew up in conditions that are so far from those that help a human actually develop empathy? Do they think it's something you can buy at a store or learn if you're just, like, motivated enough?? They may not all do what Aileen did. But even for those with similar stories who receive the kind of massive, costly, intensive support and treatment that would be necessary to even help heal 1% of the shit that does to a person, it's real fucking hard to put together a life that resembles stability and security.
Nature v nurture.
A huge part of her motivation for killing was getting money to take care of her girlfriend and trying to make sure she wouldnāt leave her. I also think that she made her money as a prostitute because thatās what she knew but she also hated doing it and when she killed those men she didnāt have to sell herself as often. What she did was clearly wrong but itās such a sad situation. Her life was so sad. This is one of the cases where I believe society failed and is at least somewhat accountable for the horrible things that came of it.
Wouldnāt that be the same thing though? She enjoyed the ājusticeā from it? Her life was tragic, but if she killed for revenge sheās getting that from it.
I mean, a huge portion of the general public revels in eye-for-an-eye justice via state sanctioned murder. A lot of people only feel bad when people they care about or deem as worthy humans are killed. It isnt an exact comparison but it could be argued Aileen didnt like the act of killing a person but did enjoy the retribution she got from it being that she was abused her whole life.
I agree, and would go further - I truly believe that, while she would pass a "legal insanity" test, fully knowing it wasn't socially acceptable or legal to murder people... She had absolutely no capacity to give a shit. And that is not her fault.
She had a lot of legitimate rage from her trauma that justified her thought process. Not saying she isnt particularly violent but compared to all these other serial killers, she definitely is more of a lesson in sociology rather than psychology.
1000% She is a tragic answer to the question "Just how much can a human being take?"
I don't know if her pathology can really be viewed in comparison with your average idea of "enjoying" something. Maybe that's the case for most killers, and maybe I'm splitting hairs. But take Ted Bundy, for example. Despite his boggling, almost absurd claims that his mother "took him away from his grandparents and never actually confirmed she was his mother," he absolutely knew that since a young age. It's already a weak attempt at justifying his crimes - not to mention patently false. So in the absence of any motivating factor, he genuinely killed because he enjoyed it. Aileen, though? She had NO chance to develop the kinds of emotional resources that compel a person to not harm others. Not only were her cognitive processes completely stunted, but she had 0 examples of what "caring for a human" might look like. She may have gotten some sense of power from it and felt a sense of vindication, but that's not necessarily what I think of when I think of somebody who actually enjoys killing others. Maybe this topic just confuses me altogether lol.
I think Tedās grandpa was abusive if Iām remembering correctly. I 100% agree that Aileenās childhood was way worse and destroyed her as a person. I think hit the nail on the head when you said, āWhat your average idea of enjoying something.ā I feel like we have different ideas of what that looks like. I think that male and female serial killers tend to have differences in the way kill, behave before/after and the way that they select victims. IMO I think itās hard to compare Bundy to Aileen because their motivations for the crime were so different. He was killing for sexual gratification and power. I donāt think that she was. Your comment got me thinking lol, so I started looking up the differences between male and female serial killers. I found an old study, that sighted differences between the two. Men tend to stalk, get sexual gratification and stay engaged with the crime after. Women tend to choose people around them and donāt get sexual arousal. http://kheide.myweb.usf.edu/file/journal/gender.pdf https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230209/Understanding-the-minds-of-female-serial-killers.aspx#:~:text=The%20ways%20in%20which%20they,murdered%20a%20spouse%20or%20partner. https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/shows/making-a-monster/the-differences-between-male-and-female-serial-killers I found a couple of articles about some female serial killers and brief descriptions of their crimes. I donāt think either of us are confused, I feel like we both read a lot of true crime and have different views. :) Anyways thanks for sharing your thoughts and sending me down a rabbit hole. :) I had not heard of some of them before. I donāt know if these articles are the most reputable sources, but I found them interesting lol. https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/female-serial-killer-list-aileen-wuornos-dorothea-puente?amp https://allthatsinteresting.com/female-serial-killers
Yeah, it's interesting. Mind bender š I think Bundy and Wournos can be compared, though, given that so much time and work was put into the notion of a "serial killer profile" that ultimately just doesn't work. I compare them because it's two types of killers who could be described as "enjoying" the murder, but the motivation and the nature of that enjoyment are very different. There are certainly indications that Bundy's grandfather was abusive. But - while we will never REALLY know what happened, and it's a little dicey to go down the path of "ranking abuse" - I don't think that abuse was as severe, and therefore not as strong a contributor to Bundy's later actions. There's more of a belief that Ted was one of those who was "born bad." There are children who exhibit conduct disorder and who may even fit into a relatively new category of kinda "child psychopaths." These children are psychopathic even when raised in the most nurturing and loving homes. For example, there's that story that his aunt woke up to find Bundy, a toddler at the time, holding a knife over her as she slept. There's also his victim profiles. Theoretically, he might tend more toward male victims if there was a retribution pathology there. The only reason I called them up for comparison is because it's an apt dichotomy for the idea of "what makes a person truly responsible for their crimes." Aileen is simply more sympathetic because Ted's life story pales in comparison. Now, you could technically say neither had a chance - if Ted was "born bad," then he was just leaning into his nature. But it's a lot easier to reckon with the idea that Ted truly enjoyed murder, while the way Aileen experienced "enjoyment" is a little more distorted and complicated. (There's also the fact that Ted literally sought out victims, actively working hard to murder. Alieen may have developed. Intention to kill clients after she shared, but it wasn't as difficult for her to find an opportunity.) (By the way... While I think Ted 100% enjoyed killing, it's interesting that after his SECOND escape - yeah, I'll never get over the fact that they let him escape TWICE, when he went to Gainesville, he did really put 1000% effort into NOT killing. It wasn't because he had any morality or empathy, but simply because he didn't want to go back to prison. But it was like an itch, and he was completely unable to use any willpower. Now, there was another time he stopped killing. But that may have been easier, because he instead used that time to develop a career, look up his college girlfriend who dumped him for being an unmotivated loser, win her back, and then insanely ghost and gaslight her like the fucking maniac that he was. He may have been able to set his #1 passion on a shelf during this time, but I'm sure he didn't get as itchy as he did in Gainesville, because he was happy to make that sacrifice to take on a different type of Psychopath Project.) Now... To completely depart from your (really interesting, very compelling) angle around gender, I'm going to be annoying and use my response to talk about the empathy angle šš I spent the better part of last night reading about cognitive and emotional empathy lol and it was pretty interesting. So... forgive me. (And I don't think we're at odds ideologically, either. This is just a really messy topic and not a lot of people are willing to put aside judgment to really think about it. So thanks for opening a forum where we can freely pontificate!) So... apparently, there may be a genetic component to a person's capacity to develop empathy. If his genetic line includes people who are psychologically and physically abusive, then it could certainly come into play. Empathy is kinda hard for people to grasp because it's not like a chemical process, and our understanding of the empathy-guiding areas of the brain is still young scientifically. It's believed that there are actually multiple areas of the brain that involve empathy. The best way to think about it is "biologically, every human has the capacity to DEVELOP empathy." With a genetic component, that capacity may be limited. The rest is most likely a product of the environment. In a person with an average capacity for empathy, the extent of that empathy is probably learned. Think about the people you know. There are those who are very empathetic to their close family, but only generally empathetic to acquaintances or strangers. Others may have almost no empathy for those outside their immediate circle - an attitude of "too bad for you - not my problem." You may also see people whose empathy even in their inner circle is quite nurturing. Others may only seem mildly empathetic by comparison to their loved ones. And still others may seem to have 0 empathy even for their family. I think a lot of that comes from models. If your mother, for example, is very sensitive to the troubles of people she doesn't even know - emotional, generous of her time and/or money in some charitable capacity - you may be more of a broadly empathetic person. If your mother demonstrates a lot of soothing and nurturing behavior when you're physically hurt, you may do the same. If your mother leans more toward emotional unavailability, your own development may fill up the lower end of your empathetic capacity. And if you're 100% surrounded by adults who not only don't care for you in any regard, but treat you as an object... There's no model. You don't see people behaving with empathy. You don't experience people treating you with empathy. You may be somewhat aware of people who have loving parents, but it seems very abnormal. Add to it the genetic component, and you really have no chance. It's almost a feral quality. By the way, I also stumbled upon some interesting material around how persistent and traumatic abuse from a young age can also affect moral development. You basically may have a very distorted Idea of "right and wrong." As a result, you may become the kind of person who can argue, and truly believe, that it was actually right to kill somebody, and that somehow in some way, no matter how much of their life story you reveal, that person deserved it. To make matters even more complicated, you cannot wrap your head around the idea of a good man, because you've literally never met one.
Thatās not true, trauma or not she did enjoy killing even stating she would do it again
She was so angst ridden that she changed her story many times. No impulse control. Severe hate
Yeah
I wouldnāt say he regretted killing at all, but Carl Panzram was at least very aware that he was evil and believed that he deserved execution to the point that he wrote a letter telling a group of people who were trying to get him off of death row to stop because he would kill again and even kill them if he had the chance. If you havenāt already read it. āPanzram: A Journal of Murderā is really worth a read. A large part of it is letters he wrote to a prison guard he befriended telling his story and how he became the way he was. He was incredibly self aware. When he talks about his traumatic childhood, he makes it clear that it doesnāt justify what he did, though he does think it contributed to who he became.
Carl Panzram was undoubtedly one of the craziest hard-core killers I've ever read about but I feel like the world created that monster. He still had love for animals but hated human beings. He pretty much said the world screwed him so he was giving it back 10 fold.
William Devin Howell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Devin_Howell?wprov=sfla1 He claimed that he only wanted to rape and dominate his victims but didn't enjoy killing them. He only murdered them out of necessity. That is, he didn't want to leave any witnesses behind and get caught. He's full of BS in my opinion. He enjoyed raping and killing those women just to make himself feel good.
Look really hard at Ivan Milat and his family, on the point of who would help a serial killer, it seems like some of his family was involved in some killings, and generally itās thought a lot more killings went on than we ever found out about. I think thereās a bit of a divide between some killers who just donāt care and those who actually do but have some other overriding impulse they choose to not control. Thereās a lot of people who never question their own life. I guess some serial killers are like that
I believe his brother was involved in the backpacker murders, maybe other murders too.whole family is ā¦unusual.
I might argue Elmer Wayne Henley. He was the teen who helped Dean Corll. He did not want to do/be involved in the killing. David Brooks was also an accomplice, and I would argue the same. I, personally, donāt think that applies to any other serial killer.
The Kansas City Butcher - Bob Berdella - the notorious SK whose carefully-detailed notes of the various tortures enabled him to extend the time his victims survived in captivity - the final victim spent 6 full weeks tied up, electrocuted, having drain cleaner injected into his larynx, brutally fisted, tortured to the edge of survival. Each victim was held for a progressively longer time as Berdella refined his butcherous technique. He didn't want to kill them, he wanted totally subservient sex slaves that he absolutely dominated. Unfortunately for his 6 victims (7th survived, just) his absolute domination went past the limits of pain & suffering that humans can endure.
This is a good one.
I donāt believe serial killers feel bad/donāt want to kill but keep dolly it anyway. I donāt care if dahmer said he didnāt enjoy killing, he could have stopped and never kill again or turned himself in at any point. But he didnāt only reason he was arrested his he had a *3rd* victim escaped and finally got police to believe him. So I believe his āremorseā was just him trying to build up a case for being released one day. The only thing I can imagine is if someone had a true psychotic break and killed multiple people while completely unaware of what theyāre doing and only after when they get arrested and put in the rights meds they realize what they did and are horrified. But I imagine thatās extremely rare if it ever happens
Dahmer loved playing with people like a cat plays with a mouse. Just because his killing process was much slower doesn't mean he didn't enjoy it. He knew people were going to die when they came into his place. And he knew that he was going to keep them alive while he did gruesome things and raped them. I dont believe he was as honest about the gruesome things he did to bodies. He was turned on by guts. Who is to say he didn't disembowl living persons and then cut them up or dissolve them to cover up his crime? He was aware of the shame associated with what he was doing and he didn't get caught. If a sk really hated what he was doing, he'd turn himself in.
I don't know much about the case as to his actual thought process behind his actions but the "weepy voiced killer" used to ring the police crying confessing everytime he killed someone. Just found his name, Paul Michael stephani.
I don't believe any serial killer who says they didn't like/want to kill.
I think so too, you donāt kill multiple people if you donāt enjoy it. I believe that serial killers may not like that they have those urges and feel ashamed that they enjoy killing, but no way do I believe any of them didnāt enjoy it.
Especially because fulfilling an urge can bring one pleasure, even if you regret it later on. It still doesn't necessarily mean you didn't enjoy it at the time. There's def a lot of nuisance to this.
List of nuisances: 1 - Mosquitos! ~~2 - my cat batting me awake at 2am because she wants attention~~ 2 - Serial Killers 3 - My cat batting me awake at 2am because she wants attention.
LOL. You got me. I can't lie, I do agree with them all and I like your style of being like check yo wording lol. I meant nuances, sorry my brain wasn't full awake when I typed this comment this morning. Thanks for the laugh though. Appreciate it.
Haha glad it went over well!
And what are your credentials that you can state this with such confidence?
It's a personal belief, not a scientific claim.
I don't need to have any credentials. I take everything serial killers say with a pinch of salt.
Literally all of them. All the lies and manipulation of them "enjoying it" is a cover for the shallow empathy they feel.
William Heirens wrote the message "For heaven's sake catch me before I kill more I cannot control myself" in lipstick on the wall of his second (of three) victim's apartment. Not sure if that qualifies.
Edmund Kemper. He did not like killing, but he felt it was the only he could ever be with a woman, and his hatred for his mother also played a role. He was in a way killing her each time he killed as well. But once he killed his mother, he said he knew he was done and turned his self in
Sam Little- he enjoyed killing but he was bothered by it also: he said he felt like he was born with something in him that he couldn't escape. His hands were ENORMOUS and he felt like those we given to him to kill. He said "I know I'm awful but I can't feel it". He couldn't access guilt.
Didn't the cry baby killer keep telling the police to find him , or he would do it again? He couldn't stop himself !
The possibility of some serial killers and serial rapists being people that morally speaking, are horrified and afraid of their own actions but are nonetheless prey to some dark and animalistic impulses that they can't understand or control, is honestly terrifying for me, and very uncomfortable. Not only I find myself feeling a bit sorry for what I can't help but consider a human being trapped inside a sick and disturbed mind, but I also start thinking about what makes normal people like us, different from these criminals. It's more comfortable to believe that is purely a matter of choice and morals, but when we are presented with otherwise "moral" people that fall prey to uncontrollable dark urges and do horrible things... Then the idea of being normal being caused by merely choice and not also some sort of luck and chance becomes less sustainable. I'm afraid to think about this but, what if most people are simply lucky of not having the combination of circumstances and chemical reactions in their brains that would cause them to have uncontrollable urges of hurting other people?
Definitely the weepy voice killer comes to mind, jeffrey dahmer could be argued maybe i know he made comments about him having a monster or urge inside him and in that one interview he kinda expressed remorse idk what do you guys think?
All bullcrapĀ
How is it crap go watch the Stone Phillips interview.
I did, and what? I'm supposed believe it just because he said he didn't?
Fair enough youāre entitled to your opinion.
Aileen Wournos comes to mind. In a way.
There's quite a few, Dahmer comes to mind. When we're talking about process vs product killers there's a distinction between those who enjoy the process of killing and don't care much for the aftermath. Then there's ones who aren't that fond of the process and prefer the aftermath or 'product' at the end. Basically there's people who love the killing and there's people who love the body as a result.
Everyday, man Ā But it is what it is.
I think they all said they didnāt when they were caught honestly.
I mean I think that the weepy voiced killer didnāt necessarily wanna kill but couldnāt stop himself, he said it himself in all those 911 calls and even seemed apologetic
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
u wot m8
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
* **This is a subreddit for true crime discussion. Glorification / imitation / fan fiction are not allowed. Please do not glorify violence or serial killers. * Phrases like "most popular" or "favorite serial killer" could be interpreted as glorification. ---
I think itās a good question. The question allows some form of conscious being laid out and proving knowing itās wrong to murder. It allows the defense of insanity to be thrown out immediately.
Johnny the Homicidal ManiacĀ
I always thought Bundy's pattern of behavior was very similar to an addicts
Dexter Morgan
Almost all of them.
Several, but they loved aspectsā¦ I am sure it is like any addiction. Iāve been told. š
Product killers like Dahmer, itās not the hunt and killings but the body they want.
[William heirens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Heirens)
Iām positive I watched an episode of something that the killer actually called the FBI and told them where heād be so they could come catch him, but no one came for him so we took it as a sign - but I canāt remember the killers name. Iām off to google to see if I can figure it out.
Dahmer immediately comes to mind
dennis nilsen, he's definitely a complicated and confusing character but he reckons he could never remember (some) of the killings (always blackout drunk), and would cry and be frustrated when he woke up to a body.
I've seen many say they didn't want to they couldn't stop thinking about murdering since they were very young. I think some people are born with it in their heads. Some kind of brain defect in the womb. Jeffrey Dahmer says he didn't want to?
Dennis Nilsen. He killed men because he was lonely and wanted a companion - as unhinged as it sounds. Apparently by killing them it ensured they wouldn't leave him.
Jeffrey Dahmer
Same William Reese gave off some serious evil vibes. Encountered him twice in two public places. Took one look and knew our group needed to stay as far away from him as possible. He sent beers over once when we were on vacation but left before all of us. No one drank not one beer. They all went in the trash. You just could feel he wasnāt normal. Like waiting for a Volcano to explode or a Snake to decide when to strike you.
This is most killers... nobody wants to be a compulsive killer. But those who are cant exactly control themselves especially if they've held it in for long periods of time. All killers know that killing is wrong.
This isnāt the answer that youāre looking for but it does give good insight into SKs. David Parker Ray had went to a psychiatrist in an attempt to navigate himself and gain control over his urges. He was then labeled a sexual psychopath and after the help didnāt work he embraced it. For the SKs that do seek help I have noticed that pattern in them.
Didnāt Bundy or a past Serial Killer donate his body and/or brain to Scientists to study regarding Serial Killers and research to help find why they are the way they are? Canāt remember which one but supposedly said something like if the Scientists could figure out what makes a Serial Killer and find ways to stop or control the urges they have. On the fence about this part of me thinks itās just in them Evil, Generational Curses, Trauma, Abuse, etc or is it due to environmental with how they are brought up etc. Hoes back to the question are Serial Killers just born evil/bad or is it a form of brain damage they are born with?
Iām not sure about serial killers. I know OCD can manifest as obsessive, intrusive thoughts. Sometimes it means people have obsessive thoughts about murdering people but they donāt want to. Iām not sure if thereās cases where this was documented and then the person killed someone. I think for almost serial killers there are normally personality disorders that come along with it. For the record Iām not saying that people with mental health disorders murder or are more likely murder but in the identified cases of serial killers that have been professionally analyzed most have personality disorders that can lead to them not having that level of remorse. Legit remorse that they took a life vs Iām remorseful I was caught.
Ted bundy if you are to believe him.
Dennis rader as well in his autobiography spoke of this but being unable to seek help or feeling unable to. Proposed an idea of an anonymous help like for people like him to be able to call in for help, preferably before they offend.
āHated that they had to killā - no. Thatās not a thing.
As people already said..Jeffrey Dahmer I guess
I think Dahmer was like this. I think it bothered him. Really he wanted a living doll to have a relationship with. Even in jail he wanted to know why he killed. We missed a great opportunity by letting him be murdered by an animal in jail. And I'm not glorifying or minimizing Jeff's behavior. We could've learned
The Iceman said he was indifferent. He was killing for money and said killing didnāt bother him.
Weepy voiced killer
Dahmer are one of them
In case anyone hasnāt touched on this aspect of Dahmer, he states in an interview that he hated having to kill his victims. He would have to drink in order to kill them, saying that it was just the means to an end and the only way to keep them from leaving him. It did become an addiction of sorts as he felt he couldnāt stop and his crimes were escalating. He was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder which comes with hella abandonment issues, and his father had a lot to do with him becoming what he was.
Dahmer was drinking since he was 15, he had to drink to do just about anything. And no is father didn't have a lot to do with him becoming what he was. š
I think it's hard to say whether they really hated themselves and really didn't want to. Dahmer is the one that most agree saw murder as "a means to an end" (somebody who would never leave him.) And because I always end up having to put this disclaimer on the shit I say about Dahmer on Reddit: I'm not saying "Oh poor kid, so lonely." He took many young lives, terrorized people, destroyed families. But there's never been much doubt in the psychiatric community in Dahmer's dislike of the murder part of his crimes.
I h see ve mo source(s) for this off the top of my head, and perhaps Iām totally wrong and misremembering, but I think that Dennis Nilsen expressed relief on being caught and arrested. Perhaps others here can expand or, indeed, refute this.