This doesn't apply to ALL serial killers, I ought to state up-front. But it does apply to enough of them whose lives are eerily parallel that I think it's worth mentioning. This initial post won't contain a lot of links to specific info, those will come later when I collate the data more closely.
For now, here's the theory in brief:
Certain serial killers who notably started offending violently at a very early age all have what they describe as (or infer is, or are said to have had) a "domineering mother". And where the father is present, he's usually 'aloof' as well 'strict' and/or a 'perfectionist'.. It's almost a cliche, isn't it? Mommy dearest, with or without her distant/absent/punitive/weak husband, abuses the son who grows up warped and takes it out on innocent victims. It's easy to take this popular view of how serial killers become what they are as fact -- the three killers I'll be discussing and comparing in this thread all shared a similar kind of upbringing, with parents who were outwardly respectable folks, if strict on their sons. It's really fashionable to dissect the parents, looking for a cause for their children to have grown up into such monsters....
.. which is exactly what I did. I studied the first two killers, Ed Kemper and Derek Percy, very closely and found a great many parallels in both their behaviours and early lives -- including descriptions of their parents and some analogous childhoods experiences. Among these were:
-- Terrorising other children.
-- Disturbing and violent forms of "play".
-- Violent felony crimes at at an early age.
-- Siblings which did not share this predilection for violence.
But what got me thinking was this:
-- Both had "strict" and "emotionally distant" parents, notably a "domineering" mother who isolated them from other children, also described as "overbearing". This is not only from the killers' own mouths, but is documented in the observations of witnesses.
I started wondering, given all the other information above -- did 'Mommy Dearest' really cause her son to become a killer? Or were the parents of these men, as parents of sociopathic and violent children -- possibly children who were simply wired that way -- forced into a "domineering" role early in their child's life, as an attempt to control behaviour they found disturbing and probably humiliating in their communities?
There's much which suggests this might be so.
From early childhood, Ed Kemper used to mutilate his sister's dolls, as he would later mutilate his victims. In his early teens, very large for his age, Kemper was locked in the basement at night by his mother, who feared he might rape or otherwise harm his siblings.
Derek Percy also was an extremely disturbed, sadistic child whose mother and father kept him well away from other children outside school hours.
Both men spoke of these events in a way designed to elicit understanding of their natures. Both men, however, are masters of manipulation -- consummate lairs who charmed victims, parole boards, psychiatrists and law enforcement officers alike into thinking they are more harmless than they are. So why should we believe them when they hint that poor treatment and abuse at the hands of their parents contributed to their murderous behaviour? It is in their interests, after all, to viewed with a sympathetic eye, however small it might be.
Was there any abuse at all going on in those homes? I can't find much evidence, aside from many mentions of the "strictness" of the parents, to suggest so. None of the siblings have claimed coming from an abusive environment, for example.
Therefore, I think it might be very possible that these "domineering" mothers and "aloof" fathers so often showing up in the lives of serial killers might be a case of the egg coming before the chicken. Would these parents have been quite so aloof or domineering, if they didn't have to deal with a child who was clearly (perhaps inexplicably) doing things which disgusted, shamed and frightened them? Are these behaviours less causative than they are highly ineffective attempts to cope?
Then I looked into the background of yet another sexually motivated killer who mutilated his victims, Peter Dupas. The parallels with Kemper and Percy are all there, the early onset violence, the teenaged explosion of felony assaults -- and lo and behold, the "domineering" mother, with her "perfectionist" husband.
Dupas, like Kemper and Percy, is described as a "model prisoner". All three behaved perfectly well behind bars, but on release soon went out to kill again.... and again. All three were released from prison multiple times, after committing heinous, violent crimes. Clearly, they were all very good at playing a system ill-equipped to deal with such creatures.
I am not, I must stress, seeking to absolve the parents of these men from all blame -- clearly, they were even as children a danger to people around them and some sort of help should have been sought. Perhaps their parental approach was oil to an already burning fire, adding powerful psychological fuel their child's violent fantasies.
The point of this post is that I so often see references to the parents in a way which suggests they are part of the cause of their sons' behaviours. If there's a chance (and I think there is) they weren't to blame at all (in the way it's usually assumed they are), beyond simply floundering badly in attempts to control the monsters they'd produced, then this opens up a whole new way of looking at psychopathic killers and how they develop.
Anyway, that's my opening post. I have a square ton of material to collate that might be of interest, relevant to this theory. Which I am not claiming is *mine* alone, I must add. I am sure there's many others who've looked at this "pattern" and asked the same questions. Of course, I'd love input from Ws'ers! Especially info on other killers who share the same 'patterns'.
For now, here's the theory in brief:
Certain serial killers who notably started offending violently at a very early age all have what they describe as (or infer is, or are said to have had) a "domineering mother". And where the father is present, he's usually 'aloof' as well 'strict' and/or a 'perfectionist'.. It's almost a cliche, isn't it? Mommy dearest, with or without her distant/absent/punitive/weak husband, abuses the son who grows up warped and takes it out on innocent victims. It's easy to take this popular view of how serial killers become what they are as fact -- the three killers I'll be discussing and comparing in this thread all shared a similar kind of upbringing, with parents who were outwardly respectable folks, if strict on their sons. It's really fashionable to dissect the parents, looking for a cause for their children to have grown up into such monsters....
.. which is exactly what I did. I studied the first two killers, Ed Kemper and Derek Percy, very closely and found a great many parallels in both their behaviours and early lives -- including descriptions of their parents and some analogous childhoods experiences. Among these were:
-- Terrorising other children.
-- Disturbing and violent forms of "play".
-- Violent felony crimes at at an early age.
-- Siblings which did not share this predilection for violence.
But what got me thinking was this:
-- Both had "strict" and "emotionally distant" parents, notably a "domineering" mother who isolated them from other children, also described as "overbearing". This is not only from the killers' own mouths, but is documented in the observations of witnesses.
I started wondering, given all the other information above -- did 'Mommy Dearest' really cause her son to become a killer? Or were the parents of these men, as parents of sociopathic and violent children -- possibly children who were simply wired that way -- forced into a "domineering" role early in their child's life, as an attempt to control behaviour they found disturbing and probably humiliating in their communities?
There's much which suggests this might be so.
From early childhood, Ed Kemper used to mutilate his sister's dolls, as he would later mutilate his victims. In his early teens, very large for his age, Kemper was locked in the basement at night by his mother, who feared he might rape or otherwise harm his siblings.
Derek Percy also was an extremely disturbed, sadistic child whose mother and father kept him well away from other children outside school hours.
Both men spoke of these events in a way designed to elicit understanding of their natures. Both men, however, are masters of manipulation -- consummate lairs who charmed victims, parole boards, psychiatrists and law enforcement officers alike into thinking they are more harmless than they are. So why should we believe them when they hint that poor treatment and abuse at the hands of their parents contributed to their murderous behaviour? It is in their interests, after all, to viewed with a sympathetic eye, however small it might be.
Was there any abuse at all going on in those homes? I can't find much evidence, aside from many mentions of the "strictness" of the parents, to suggest so. None of the siblings have claimed coming from an abusive environment, for example.
Therefore, I think it might be very possible that these "domineering" mothers and "aloof" fathers so often showing up in the lives of serial killers might be a case of the egg coming before the chicken. Would these parents have been quite so aloof or domineering, if they didn't have to deal with a child who was clearly (perhaps inexplicably) doing things which disgusted, shamed and frightened them? Are these behaviours less causative than they are highly ineffective attempts to cope?
Then I looked into the background of yet another sexually motivated killer who mutilated his victims, Peter Dupas. The parallels with Kemper and Percy are all there, the early onset violence, the teenaged explosion of felony assaults -- and lo and behold, the "domineering" mother, with her "perfectionist" husband.
Dupas, like Kemper and Percy, is described as a "model prisoner". All three behaved perfectly well behind bars, but on release soon went out to kill again.... and again. All three were released from prison multiple times, after committing heinous, violent crimes. Clearly, they were all very good at playing a system ill-equipped to deal with such creatures.
I am not, I must stress, seeking to absolve the parents of these men from all blame -- clearly, they were even as children a danger to people around them and some sort of help should have been sought. Perhaps their parental approach was oil to an already burning fire, adding powerful psychological fuel their child's violent fantasies.
The point of this post is that I so often see references to the parents in a way which suggests they are part of the cause of their sons' behaviours. If there's a chance (and I think there is) they weren't to blame at all (in the way it's usually assumed they are), beyond simply floundering badly in attempts to control the monsters they'd produced, then this opens up a whole new way of looking at psychopathic killers and how they develop.
Anyway, that's my opening post. I have a square ton of material to collate that might be of interest, relevant to this theory. Which I am not claiming is *mine* alone, I must add. I am sure there's many others who've looked at this "pattern" and asked the same questions. Of course, I'd love input from Ws'ers! Especially info on other killers who share the same 'patterns'.