Theories about Killing and Serial Killers - Research Paper Example

?Introduction Ted Bundy is a serial killer who is perhaps the famous that has ever lived. That said, Bundy defies explanation or profiling. He has none of the hallmarks put forth by some profilers, that is that killers are made because of brain damage, abuse and mental illness. He was organized in some killings, profoundly disorganized in others. Nothing in his childhood seemed horrible enough to create the man that he was. Bundy was able to establish relationships, one that went on for years, and was able to fool just about everybody he knew into thinking that he was the model citizen. Among these people was Ann Rule, the popular true crime writer, who believed, for years, that Bundy was not capable of the crimes for which he was accused. In the end, Bundy proves that profiling is not an easy or exact science, and that not all killers will fit into neat categories. In many ways, Bundy defied profiles. Discussion In profiling a serial killer, one the most aspects to know is what, essentially, makes them the way that they are. This is because, at the heart of profiling, is the question – “what sort of people carry out what sort of actions?” (Canter, 2000, p. 3). There are a number of theories about killing and serial killers, and one of the most important is the theory put forth by Jonathan Pincus and Dorothy Lewis. For them, killing is the result of a trifecta of brain damage, mental illness and prior abuse (Pincus, 2001, p. 27). Pincus came to this theory when examining Louis Culpepper, who was thirty years old and accused of sleeping with his six year old stepdaughter, whom he made masturbate him. Culpepper had frontal lobe damage, and was physically and sexually abused as a child (Pincus, 2001, p. 27). Although Culpepper was the first individual whom Pincus examined who had the trifecta, Pincus also examined serial killers and found that the trifecta was present in every one of the serial killers he examined (Pincus, 2001, p. 129). Pincus found that the mental illness that a typical serial killer displayed was some sort of mood disorder, such as bi-polar disorder, in which an individual goes through bouts of mania and depression. Thus, the typical serial killer will go through manic urges during the manic part of his bi-polar disorder, but, at all other times, are able to evince a calm demeanor (Pincus, 2001, p. 129). This gives the killer the facade of being a normal person during the times that he is not in the throes of mania, which is the reason why many people are fooled by serial killers and feel that they are such nice fellows. Moreover, while Pincus found that the typical serial killer had also suffered some type of brain damage, the brain damage that serial killers exhibit is typically less than one-time killers. The reason for this because serial killers are cunning and sly, and severe brain damage would limit the degree of cunning that is needed to get away with what serial killers are able to do (Pincus, 2001, p. 129). Nevertheless, another profiler of serial killers, Helen Morrison, M.D., who, having spent over 400 hours digging into the psyches of serial killers, is considered one of the foremost experts on serial killers. Among her clients is the infamous John Wayne Gacy, who murdered 33 young boys (Morrison, 2004, p. 68). Morrison does not believe in the trifecta, especially the part of the trifecta that states that serial killers invariably have some kind of brain damage. Morrison found no evidence of brain damage in Gacy. Moreover, although two other individuals who Morrison examined, Arthur Showcross and Bobby Joe Long, evidently had evidence of brain trauma, Morrison does not believe that one caused the other. Morrison feels that Pincus, and his partner, psychiatrist Dorothy Lewis, have not definitively proved cause and effect when it comes to brain damage causing a person to kill (Morrison, 2004, p. 177). Along with the theories about the trifecta causing a person to become a serial killer, there are the theories about disorganized killers verses organized ones. According to Stephen Michaud and Roy Hazelwood, two FBI Profilers, a disorganized killer is one who puts little thought into each crime and even less thought into covering up the crime. A good example of an disorganized killer is one who kills, leaves the body out in the open and leaves a piece of evidence that can easily tie him to the crime. For instance, in San Diego, California, John Gardner raped and murdered 17 year old Chelsea King and another girl, Amber Dubois. John Gardner, after raping and murdering Chelsea King, left Chelsea’s underwear on the body (Suspect in Chelsea King Case Deemed Continued Danger to Underage Girls). The underwear had his semen in it, definitively linking him to the crime. This would be the typical action of a disorganized killer, according to Hazelwood, as Gardner obviously put no thought into how to cover up his crime. An organized killer, on the other hand, is the opposite. He plans his crimes, stalking his victims, lying in wait. And, when he is done, he is meticulous about covering his tracks. Hazelwood cites the case of Ed Kemper, the 6 foot 9 inch serial killer who brutally murdered many women by decapitating and sexually assaulting them. One of his victims was his mother, whom he had sex with after death (Michaud & Hazelwood, 1998, p. 95). However, the thing about Kemper is that he was never caught just by the crime scenes. Kemper called the police and confessed to his crimes. If he did not do that, he might have never been caught (Michaud & Hazelwood, 1998, p. 95). Kemper wasn’t caught because he left no trace that would lead investigators back to him. Moreover, Kemper was able to lure his victims in because he rehearsed, over and over, how to pick people up. Therefore, Kemper did not just go out and rampage and kill on impulse – he cunningly went out and found people by using lines that he had rehearsed and got down pat (Michaud & Hazelwood, 1998, p. 97). Hazelwood also believes that organized killers verses disorganized ones also have other divergent characteristics. For one, the disorganized killer is crazy and psychotic, and is akin to a wild dog. The disorganized killer is a loner, has few friends or social skills, has poor hygiene, cannot form a normal relationship with anybody and feels rejected by the world. On the other hand, the organized killers are usually just the opposite. Intelligent, and cunning, they are like the crafty wolf, stalking his prey. They have an outward facade or normality, may be charming and have normal relationships. They are supremely manipulative and able to bend people to their will (Michaud & Hazelwood, 1998, p. 65). As with the theory put forth by Pincus, however, the organized verses disorganized dichotomy also has detractors. One such is Jonathan Canter, who is an offender profiler. For him the disorganized verses organized dichotomy does not withstand scrutiny. He states that there is not a simple one to one characteristic, but, rather, there are an infinite variety of characteristics in infinite combinations that would cause the actions of a serial killer. Therefore, the disorganized verses organized dichotomy are too simplistic (Canter, 2010). Criminology professor Steven A. Egger would agree with this assessment. For Egger, serial killers do not necessarily fit into neat and tidy categories or groups of theories. Rather, a wide variety of people, from widely divergent backgrounds, have attempted to “explain” serial killers, and no one theory has been adequate. Disciplines such as anthropologists, sociologist and the like blame serial killers on cultural aspects, such as the use of pornography, media influence and the like. Neurologists cite brain trauma and dysfunction. Psychiatrists see a mixture of both (Egger, 1998, p. 89). However, for Egger, serial killing is individualistic, as no one theory will explain why killers kill. Theories Applied to Ted Bundy Perhaps no one killer embodies the theory put forth by Steven Egger more than Ted Bundy, for Bundy defied the neat characteristics that certain profilers attempt to fit serial killers. Bundy was an anomaly. There was no evidence of abuse in his family history. No evidence of brain damage. Bundy was also organized in the early days, and profoundly disorganized in his latter crimes. In short, there was no way that an individual could examine Bundy and state “there’s the smoking gun!” Because there really was none, and Bundy defied characterization. Ann Rule, who is now a famous crime writer, actually knew Ted Bundy very well, having worked with him on a suicide crisis line in the early 1970s (Rule, 2000, p. 48). Rule was very fond of Bundy, and saw him as somebody who was “the perfect guy” – compassionate with the suicide callers, funny, urbane, intelligent, mannerly, clean-cut. Her portrayal of Bundy, indeed, was somebody who anybody might like to know and hang out with. Bundy and Rule had long talks, and Bundy never failed to listen, really listen, to her problems with concern and give her sage advice (Rule, 2000, p. 49). Rule was so fond of Bundy that she did not believe, for many years, that he was capable of the crimes he committed. Indeed, there was nothing in Bundy’s childhood that would precipitate the kind of rage and fury he evidently bottled. True, Bundy was illegitimate and was lied to by his grandparents, who posed as his parents, and his mother, who posed as his sister, for years. Moreover, Bundy did not find this out by anybody telling him directly. Rather, he had to find out on his own, when he went to find his birth certificate in Vermont (Rule, 2000, p. 55). This was definitely something that was unusual, although there are undoubtedly many other people who were in that same boat, yet did not kill. What was not evident, from his childhood, however, was abuse. In none of the accounts written on Bundy was there ever a hint of any kind of abuse in his childhood. Perhaps the real triggering mechanism for Bundy’s rage was his relationship with Stephanie Brooks who was a “woman who was the epitome of [Bundy’s] dreams” (Rule, 2000, p. 30). Brooks was wealthy, sophisticate, beautiful and popular. Bundy felt inferior to her, stating that “She and I had about as much in common as Sears and Roebuck does with Saks” (Rule, 2000, p. 30). Still, Stephanie and Ted began a relationship, and Ted fell hopelessly in love with her. In the end, however, Ted really was not good enough for Stephanie, or, at least, for a long-term relationship. Stephanie wanted somebody who would fit into her wealthy world, and Ted would not do. So, she dumped him (Rule, 2000, p. 30). Stephanie was beautiful, with long hair parted in the middle, perfectly even features and a slight build (Rule, 2000, p. 699). This description is important, because it is the description of all of Bundy’s victims. Lynda Healy, 21 years old, with long hair parted down the middle, with slender build and beautiful (Rule, 2000, p. 91). Linda disappeared from her bed during the night. Next came Donna Manson, who also fit the physical description, and disappeared on her way to a concert (Rule, 2000, p. 101). Susan Rancourt, 5’2” and 120 pounds, beautiful and blond (which was different from the other girls, who were brunette), disappeared after an on-campus meeting (Rule, 2000, p. 109). These killings all happened in Washington State. Then, Bundy moved onto Oregon, where Kathy Parks, tall, slender, beautiful, with hair parted down the middle, disappeared on her way to her Student Union Building (Rule, 2000, p. 115). Georgann Hawkins, 18 years old, and, at 5’2” and 115 lbs, very slight of build, disappeared while walking 200 feet from her boyfriend’s fraternity house to her own house (Block, 2004). Janice Ott, 5 feet tall and 100 lbs, with hair parted down the middle, disappeared from a park in Washington (Rule, 2000, p. 149). Denise Naslund, 18 years old, dark haired and attractive, disappeared on her way to a restroom in the same park where Janice was abducted (Rule, 2000, p. 151). Melissa Smith, 17 years old, disappeared on her way home from a slumber party (Rule, 2000, p. 194). Carol DaRonch, 18 years old, was approached by a man who stated that an “Officer Roseland”, stating that somebody was trying to break into her car, and asked her to come with him, who later attacked her (Rule, 2000, p. 204). Debby Kent, 17 years old, disappeared in Utah on her way home from a play (Rule, 2000, p. 209). During these early days, Bundy definitely had the air of an organized killer, as he used ruses to lure his victims. For instance, he would have his arm in a sling, and ask a girl if they would help him load books into his car (Rule, 2000, p. 111), or ask a girl to help him launch a sailboat (Rule, 2000, p. 150). Or, he would be on crutches with a briefcase, and needed help getting into his car (Rule, 2000, p. 127). Also, during these early days, Bundy evidently used charm and a calm demeanor when approaching his victims. He would come to them, smiling, and casually ask them something like “say, could you help me a minute?” (Rule, 2000, p. 145). Or, with Carol Daronch, he posed as a police officer. Therefore, according to Hazelwood’s theory, Bundy fit the description of an organized killer. Bundy had a relationship, both with Stephanie and, later, a long-term relationship with Meg Anders (Rule, 2000, p. 42). He was debonair and charming, and carefully planned his crimes, by dressing up as a police officer or having some other sort of ruse, such as using crutches or an arm sling, to lure in victims. He covered his tracks very well, so well, that nobody could figure out who was killing these girls. They simply vanished. He certainly did fit the mold of the cunning wolf, the man who was manipulative and sly, as opposed to crazy like a rabid dog. Unlike a disorganized killer, he was not a loner and did not have any kind of hygiene problems. Perhaps he felt rejected, as Stephanie did reject him, but this would be the only part of the profile of a disorganized killer that would fit at this point. This all changed with Bundy’s second round of killings. This second round of killings happened after Bundy was caught, and was tried and convicted in Utah for attempted kidnapping, then extradited to Colorado to stand trial for the murder of Caryn Campbell, who was another girl who, like the others, was young, beautiful, with long hair parted down the middle (Block, 2004, p. 23). Ted escaped while awaiting trial for the murder of Campbell, and fled to Florida. There, he started a rampage that could only be categorized as disorganized. Bundy went to the Chi Omega House at Florida State University, and where he bludgeoned Kathy Kleiner, who lived, and bludgeoned Lisa Levy, who did not. Lisa was left, dead, in her bed, with her right nipple having almost been bitten off (Rule, 2000, p. 481). Margaret Bowman met a similar fate, except that her neck was broken, her skull shattered (Rule, 2000, p. 483). The next victim that night was Cheryl Thomas, who fit the same description as all the other victims. Cheryl was attacked in her bed, and left for dead. However, like Kathy Kleiner, Cheryl did live, although she was severely injured (Rule, 2000, p. 491). Less than a month after these crimes, Bundy kidnapped murdered 12 year old Kimberly Leach (Block, 2004, p. 24). Therefore, these murders contrasted sharply with the other ones. It is almost like there were two different Ted Bundys doing the killings. While the Ted Bundy in the early days was the consummate organized killer, cunning, shrewd, using disguises and being patient, the Ted Bundy in Florida was a completely different type. The Florida Ted Bundy fit the disorganized killer pattern to a T. He rampaged through the Chi Omega house with the fury of a rabid dog. He even bit one of his victims so hard that her nipple almost was bitten off. He left the bodies in the bed, so that investigators could find them right away and be able to do autopsies and find him. He even left pantyhose at one of the crime scenes, with his hair inside the hose (Rule, 2000, p. 499). There was no evidence of the suave, charming Ted Bundy who lured his victims in with a ruse and a smile. It his place was the wild, savage beast who rampaged and left evidence behind, evidence that was used to convict him. Therefore, at least with Ted Bundy, he was not easily characterized as either disorganized or organized, for he was both. Therefore, Bundy defies almost every profile that has been put forth by experts. Neither organized nor disorganized, but both, and with no evidence of abuse or brain damage, Bundy does not fit the profiles of Hazelwood or Pincus. David Schmid, author of Natural Born Celebrities believes that Bundy defies explanation. He believes that the attempts to characterize Bundy as a monster lurking behind a facade, which is what the narrative about Bundy became, is too facile, stating that these characterizations are “the only way they can get around the problem of Bundy’s ordinariness is to assume the presence of the extraordinary, of the monstrous, and then go looking for it, comforted by the thought that Bundy’s apparent normality is just that, an apparition, with no stability next to the reliable solidity of the monster” (Schmid, 2005, p. 215). Conclusion Although there are many profiles of serial killers, and many theories about serial killers, Ted Bundy proves that one can never stereotype these killers. Profiling a serial killer is not as easy as stating that all killers have brain damage, abuse and a mental illness. Pincus, however, does believe that, as he has stated that, without exception, every one of the serial killers he has profiled has had this trifecta. This trifecta is refuted by Helen Morrison, who states that just because these killers have the trifecta does not necessarily mean that the trifecta caused the behavior. Roy Hazelwood states that killers can be grouped into two categories – organized and disorganized. These are all attempts to make sense of what killers do. However, Bundy shows that sometimes no sense can be made. Bundy was not abused, he did not have brain damage. He most likely had a mental illness of some sort, although he was able to pass psychological exams because he knew what to look for. Bundy was the consummate organized killer in the early days, then disorganized in the latter days. Perhaps his prison stays changed his demeanor, although this is just a theory, just like anything else. Bundy was rejected early by a lover, and, apparently, killed the girls because they looked like Stephanie. However, who has not been rejected by a lover at least once? Stephanie’s rejection is hardly explanation for the rampage that Bundy inflicted on the world. Bundy was illegitimate and lied to. Again, it is doubtful that he is alone in this. In the end, there are no easy explanations, no easy profiles that will fit every killer. Bundy was in defiance of accepted profiles. Perhaps criminologist Stephen Egger has it right – that there are an abundance of factors that create a killer, and these factors are wide-ranging and come from different theories and disciplines of science. Perhaps it is cultural, in that pornography and the like may turn people into sexual killers, or organic, in that brain damage does it. Most likely it will always be a combination of factors, therefore profiling will never be an easy science. Ted Bundy proves this. Sources Used Block, Lawrence. Gangsters, Swindlers, Killers & Thieves. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003. Canter, David. The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Canter, David. “Offender Profiling and Criminal Differentiation.” Legal and Criminological Psychology 5: 23-46. Egger, Steven. “Why Serial Murderers Kill: An Overview.” In Serial Killer: Contemporary Issues Companion. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000. Morrison, Helen. My Life Among the Serial Killers. New York, NY: HarperCollins Books, 2004. Michaud, Stephen & Roy Hazelwood. The Evil that Men Do. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Pincus, Jonathan. Base Instincts: What Makes Killers Kill. London: W.W. Norton & Co., 2001. Rule, Ann. The Stranger Beside Me. Thorndike, ME: Thorndike Press, 2000. Schmid, David. Natural Born Celebrities. London: University of Chicago Press, 2005. “Suspect in Chelsea King Case Deemed Continued Danger to Underaged Girls.” NCTimes.com. March 1, 2010. 3 April 2011. Read More