"But Does (S)he Look Like a Fiend?"

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:04 pm

I was just reading about that guy in Kansas, Dennis Rader, who refers to himself as the "BTK Killer." He has now pled guilty to ten killings and cannot be executed, because there was no death penalty at the time the murders took place. He's certainly an atypical-looking murderer, and his lifestyle has hardly been what one would expect of a killer. Well-educated, rather studious-looking, in a stable marriage, churchgoing, a good family man. Of course, he murdered strangers, which is probably why he got away with it for so long. It was only by a fluke that he was caught. It's almost as if he was saying, "Stop me before I kill again."

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:35 pm

Reminds me of Ted Bundy, the nice looking friendly
guy.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:42 am

His courtroom confessions were rather explicit, yet detached, from what I heard on the news. Since I believe there were courtroom cameras I checked Court TV but it wasn't on there, am I correct?
They had on the verdict of a girl who killed her parents.

Wouldn't his family wonder why he was so detached?
I agree that he seems like he wanted to be caught, but then didn't he always struggle to be recognized in the US but was destined to only be known regionally? At least that was the spin I saw on the first special on him.
Writing letters seems to indicate this.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:42 am

I don't get Court TV (which is a good thing; I was addicted to it). Rader has been all over broadcast TV, but I don't think his confession was anticipated. That may explain why it wasn't covered by Court TV. It's really chilling to hear him going over the details as if he's explaining how to program a VCR. I'm sure we'll be reading several books about him. Looks like a case for Ann Rule, among others. I do hope we'll be spared the "usual" Mark Fuhrman take, however. At one time I felt sorry for him; now I think he's a jerk. He and Tom Cruise are experts on everything. Yeah, right!

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:48 am

Oh, his confession was incredible. I only caught part of one (my video on here kept stopping). They called him the "textbook sociopath" - no conscience for one thing, and didn't it show??? So he can't get the death penalty - because some of his murders happened before it was in effect?!
Actually, it is cheaper, according to anti-death penalty activists, to keep a person in jail for life than it is to go thru the death penalty process with them. The costs of those appeals - and the many years it takes - and the special care they need (their own cell block) they claim costs a lot more than the cost of a regular prisoner.

A lot of people say that it's so much worse for the person to do life in prison. I don't know. I see a lot of people on tv that are used to the prison routine and look like they're doing okay to me.

I love Ann Rule. I buy all of her books and currently have several on my to-be-read shelf. I wonder if she will write on this BTK guy. She seems to let the high profile cases go because others will write books on those. I think Ted Bundy was an exception because she knew him.

I guess the main thing is they finally caught him. Yup - another Ted Bundy. They are usually the ones you would never suspect by looking at.

What state was that BTK guy from? Illinois? Indiana? And he said he did this for sexual thrills??? I don't understand that. I have read that that is the motive for serial killers. I don't know if I believe that to be completely true or not.

I agree, Edisto. I am sick of Mark Fuhrman (sp?) and his true crime books. He was on tv last nite, and they said what book he has out now, and I said to my husband, "Gee - that book came out fast!" What was it ....? A recent crime ... I don't know why he is on all these shows as a criminal expert. I would rather not see him at all. As much as I was into the Greenwich, Connecticut case (the Moxley/Ethel Kennedy cousin case) I couldn't bring myself to buy his book. I am glad that was re-investigated. Wasn't Furhman the one who pushed for that? Or was it Dominique Dunne?

I wonder how many have already started their "Natalee Holloway/Aruba" books? I never buy a true crime book that comes out real fast, because it usually just has the same stuff I already heard on the news in it. I like to wait until the story is over - the trial, the sentencing, maybe even the slime's life. For the first time, I watched about an hour about her last nite, and it's interesting. I feel myself starting to get hooked.

Not that this is the girl's fault - but I wouldn't let my daughter go to Aruba on "spring break". I think "spring break" for most people means get away from the folks and have a major party. I don't think I would have been doing my daughter a favor by letting her go. (I don't think anyone from her class went anyway. Our area is pretty conservative.)

I saw that Tom Cruise interview on 'nobody needs medicine anymore'. I laughed and laughed at your reference, Edisto. Didn't he make an a*s out of himself ...

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:32 pm

I agree Tom Cruise came off as a jerk in the
interview but I agree with him about too many
people on medications. Every TV commercial is
take a pill for anxiety, depression, attention problems, sexual problems,etc.etc. I am with the
George Carlin theory: having a bad hair day? put
on a hat and shut up. (i realize there are many who
really do need to be on medication tho)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:51 pm

It's very disappointing but Carlin recently admitted to being a drunk again. So he should talk about pills?

Ann Rule did write a new one on a recently solved big case- Green River Running Red, i think it's called. I read about 1/2- it was very good but by the time I got to all my library books I had to return her before I finished it.
It dwells on bios of the victims, at least the first 1/2 or so. It was interesting to note how young the first many were. There was a picture of each and her story. It was a very good and meaningful approach to the solution of those crimes.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:15 pm

Kat, don't be so judgemental about Carlin, jeez he is a successful comedien, so if he drinks or whatever, he is still a brilliant guy. Maybe he is working on his stuff, we don't know. Don't judge others unless you want to be judged. (I think that is in the Bible somewhere).

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:31 am

Oh come on Nancie you know me well enough by now.
He's the one who made a public statement. He's the one who was pretending for so long and disappointing his daughter pretending to be something he wasn't which was all his words not mine.
I was very surprised at him because he had been seeming so together.
He made the statement for a reason. So he could admit his mistakes and get sober.
Everyone deserves another chance. He's had a lot of chances given him tho this guy.
He could be driving drunk - I don't have children so I don't worry about what effect his behavior might have on another younger generation.
It does seem hypocritical to me in a very deep sense tho.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:10 am

Just because someone is good at what they do, does not mean they can do whatever they want and expect the public to adore them..

Michael Jackson can sure sing but I do not admire his singing enough to overlook his weirdness!

Oprah drives me crazy with her sing/song chanting and the way she sometimes talks-- But I admire her and the things she does for people and can easily overlook (what I think to be) something really annoying about her.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:19 pm

I don't know any of Carlin's history, never heard
any statements about daughter or anything. None
of us know these media figures ourselves, like Bill
Cosby has been in the news in a negative way, I
don't listen to all that, I tune it out and switch channels. Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, all the
bad boys, it will go on forever, the media needs news. As a lay person who does not know these
people personally, I have to judge them solely on
their works. If I don't care for someone's personality (like Oprah) I just don't watch them.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:45 pm

On the subject of true crime books: I read most of the ones I can get my hands on, even the real potboilers. Some of the writing is so bad that I keep chuckling to myself even as I read the gory details. Ann Rule used to be pretty bad, but she has gotten quite competent, possibly with good editorial help. Of course Fuhrman doesn't do his own writing; he has an "assistant" to do that. He and Dominick Dunne worked together on the Moxley case, and Fuhrman does deserve some of the credit for getting it reopened.

An absolutely wonderful true-crime book, perhaps the best I've ever read, is "And the Dead Shall Rise" by Steve Oney. It's about the 1913 Mary Phagan/Leo Frank case and presented about as much of a research challenge as the Borden case does, even though the identity of the real Phagan murderer should probably have been evident from the first. Oney is a masterful researcher and a great writer as well. It's shocking that this is Oney's first book. The depth of his research is such that it may well be his last too. It came out in 2003 and should still be easy to find. How I wish someone could do something similar with the Borden case!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:04 pm

That book sounds like something I would love to read. I will be looking for that one. That case is really intriguing. I am planning to make a trip to a couple book stores this weekend. I'll be on the look out.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:59 pm

Edisto are you related to Oney? Who ever heard
of him/her? Ann Rule is tops, for you to belittle her
is offensive. She has to be the best crime writer we
have.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:08 pm

I loved her book A Stranger Beside Me. I think she wrote the best book about Ted Bundy out there. If only for the reason that she knew him before he was ever even thought of as a suspect for any murder, and could look at the more personal and human side of him. Well...that is...the one that he put up as a front anyway.

I think any humanity that man ever showed was fake.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:28 pm

yes Melissa, that book was awesome, as were all
her other books, she really researches and gives a
personality check of the murderers.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:41 pm

Just to be clear, I am not referring to Bill Cosby or Martha Stewart here -only George Carlin.
I don't wish to muddy the waters with these other names thrown in here.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:09 pm

Funny Kat I know absolutely nothing about Carlin,
only a few memorable lines I happened to remember from years ago. My point was that if I
did hear in the news he was drunk or whatever, I
would just chalk it up to media stuff. As when you hear news flashes about others doing horrible things
that you don't know are true or not, the Inquirer type stuff, do you believe what you hear, I don't even give it a second thought, just rubbish gossip.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:52 pm

Well, I think about stuff like this. I've read his books and seen his TV appearances (Usually selling a book or a road show or one-nighter- he's selling something) and I like his stuiff -he's creative. But as a child of the 60's (Early early 60's) he has had substance abuse problems all his life and he talks about it. So when he pretends to be clean and sober and he's not, I think that is dangerous. His family, friends, people he's in business with think he's trustworthy but he's not.
What I figure is if he made an announcement like that he is basically saying Help Me. He can't do it alone- if he tells everyone then his family, friends and society will now know and watch out and help keep an eye on him- he's basically saying he can't do it himself so he puts the discipline he doesn't have into other's hands. I don't care how he goes about it as long as he's getting help and being truthful.
Do you know what I mean?
It's sort of like wanting to quit smoking. If someone just can't seem to do it themselves if they tell everyone they are quitting they get the extra support for that endeavor. That's what I think he is trying to achieve by making a statement.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:43 pm

Kat you are losing me because sorry I don't give two hoots about Carlin. But people in general, if they want to change it is personal. I hope Carlin
gets whatever help he needs. I will tell you that Nya's smiles are the best medicine anyone could ever have, wish I could send some to Carlin.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:44 pm

Nancie (or whoever you are), possibly you're just having a bad day, or a succession of bad days. I notice you seem to be sniping at anyone who dares to post an opinion here. My remarks with regard to Steve Oney's and Ann Rule's books are strictly my opinions (shared by quite a few book reviewers), and I believe I have as much right to mine as you do to yours. Most of the people I know who are named "Steve" are male, but I guess that hint is too subtle for someone of your intellect. As far as I know, I'm not related to Mr. Oney, although I'd be proud to claim kin. For that matter, I think Ann Rule is probably a nice person, and I enjoy her books too. Saying her writing has improved is hardly an insult, after all.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:54 pm

Thanks for the name of the book and author, Edisto. I will go hunting for it. I can't think who Mary Phagan was, tho. I know, I know. It's probably some totally famous case that everyone but me knows about. She sounds Irish.

"Helter Skelter" by Vincent Bugliosi was very good. "Crime of the Century" on the Leopold & Loeb case was fabulous. I can't find my copy to cite the author. I got lucky a few years ago and at my library found the first book written on that case. Do you remember a movie called "Compulsion" that was the story of the Leopold & Loeb case? Dean Stockwell and Bruce Dern played the 'boys'. Martin Milner played this reporter, and the book was written by the real reporter Milner played onscreen. Loeb was still living at the time (1959?) and he made a legal fuss about it, so they had to change their names both in the book and the movie. I wish they would remake that movie. But "Compulsion" is kind of accurate. Well, it's all we have ...

Edisto - when you mentioned that Ann Rule writes better nowadays, were you thinking of those short paperbacks she used to write? Like the I-5 Killer? There's a few more, I think. I liked those. Me and my mom and sister used to pass them between us. Now Ann Rule writes big, thick books that are great. And the ones that have several cases in them are real good, too. Any time I see a new paperback of hers, I just buy it based on her name and have never been disappointed.

One of her books - I forget which one - she wrote about this guy who robbed banks. It wasn't a murder story like she always writes. And I thought, "I'm not gonna like this." But I became quickly hooked and loved it.

One thing she does that I don't like, tho, is sometimes she - at least she used to - will go into too much detail about the cops' private lives that had nothing to do with the story, and I'd just be itching for the story to go on.

Yes, of course we all have our rights to our own opinions. If we all thought the same none of us would be on here - it'd be too boring. Isn't it ironic to talk about that on Independence Day ...

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:04 pm

Mary Phagan was a young girl (aged about 13 at the time of her death) employed in The National Pencil Factory in Atlanta. A few details may be found at http://ngeorgia.com/feature/littlesecrets.html

And a bit more at http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/leofrank.htm

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:55 am

*** Do you remember a movie called "Compulsion" that was the story of the Leopold & Loeb case? Dean Stockwell and Bruce Dern played the 'boys'. Martin Milner played this reporter, and the book was written by the real reporter Milner played onscreen. Loeb was still living at the time (1959?) and he made a legal fuss about it, so they had to change their names both in the book and the movie. I wish they would remake that movie. But "Compulsion" is kind of accurate. Well, it's all we have ... ***

there is "Swoon" from about '92 (an odd effort, not as compelling as i would have thought it would be, but interesting enough to see anyway)

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:17 am

Hmmm...somebody else's memory is almost as fallible as mine. (I'm a lot older, however.) The novel "Compulsion" was written by Meyer Levin, who had indeed been a reporter in Chicago. However, I couldn't find anything about his having reported on the Leopold/Loeb case. He was born in 1905 and would have been pretty young in 1924; however, there were some very young reporters involved in the case, including one who belonged to the same frat as Richard Loeb. I think that reporter's name was Meyer, which could have caused confusion. Richard Loeb wasn't in any condition to protest Levin's 1956 book nor the 1958 movie, because he had been dead since 1936. He was killed by a fellow inmate, who claimed Loeb had made homosexual advances. Apparently the court believed him, because he was acquitted.

It was Nathan Leopold who was still living in 1956. Publication of the book may have actually helped him, because he was paroled in 1958, after which he moved to Puerto Rico, got married, and tried to devote his life to good works. I don't know whether Leopold actually protested about his name being used, but I suppose there was always that possibility. He did write his own book shortly after his parole.

Bruce Dern wasn't in the movie version of "Compulsion." The thrill killers were played by Dean Stockwell and Bradford Dillman. (I remember much of this, but I verified it using the crimelibrary.com website and other sources. Crimelibrary has an excellent history of the crime.)

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:43 pm

Just to add something here: One of the best examples I’ve ever seen in the way of case summations was that delivered by Clarence Darrow on behalf of Leopold & Loeb in August, 1924. I’m not sure exactly how long it went, but some reports say Darrow spoke for as many as two days – and that at least once during the summation Darrow’s words moved the judge to tears.

It ought be noted first of all that pleas of “Guilty” been entered on behalf of both Leopold & Loeb, leaving only Judge Caverley standing between them and the noose - and that under the law as it stood at the time, both Leopold and Loeb were juvenile offenders, the age of majority at that time (as Darrow implies at another point in his argument) being age 21.

The entire thing makes dandy reading, as I say. Here are but a few samples from the argument:
…
But, Your Honor, if these boys hang, you must do it. There can be no division of responsibility here. You can never explain that the rest overpowered you. It must be by your deliberate, cool, premeditated act, without a chance to shift responsibility. It was not a kindness to you. We placed this responsibility on your shoulders because we were mindful of the rights of our clients, and we were mindful of the unhappy families who have done no wrong.

Your Honor will never thank me for unloading this responsibility upon you, but you know that I would have been untrue to my clients if had not concluded to take this chance before court, instead of submitting it to a poisoned jury in the city of Chicago. I did it knowing that it would be an unheard of thing for any court, no matter who, to sentence these boys to death. Your Honor, I must for a moment criticize the arguments that have preceded me. I can sum up the prosecutor's arguments in a minute: cruelly, dastardly, premeditated, fiendish, abandoned, and malignant heart.…

The jewel in the proverbial crown though comes I think at the very end:

I feel that I should apologize for the length of time I have taken. This case may not be as important as I think it is, and I am sure I do not need to tell this court, or to tell my friends, that I would fight just as hard for the poor as for the rich. If I should succeed in saving these boys' lives and do nothing for the progress of the law, I should feel sad, indeed.
If I can succeed, my greatest reward and my greatest hope will be that I have done something for the tens of thousands of other boys, or the countless unfortunates who must tread the same road in blind childhood that these poor boys have trod, that I have done something to help human understanding, totemper justice with mercy, to overcome hate with love.

I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar Khayyam. It appealed to me as the highest that can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

So I be written in the Book of Love,
Do not care about that Book above.
Erase my name or write it as you will,
So I be written in the Book of Love.

*At this point I, too should beg your pardon, as this also has run a bit longer than I had intended.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:00 pm

well I don't know how to do the copy/ paste quotes
but Edisto said "Nancie or who whoever you are.."
HA raise your hand if you don't know who I am, plus Waylon, Tristy and Nya. GeeZ...........

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:37 pm

I had read a bit about Clarence Darrow in this case and found that he was inherently opposed to the death penalty as an abomination in our system. But here, too, with your posting, Doug-Oh, of some of his argument I see that he was also concerned with these specific individuals, not just in theory..
Thanks! That was interesting!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:33 am

Exactly... Darrow was in many ways a complex man - and the Loeb-Leopold case presented him with a myriad of complex issues, not the least of which was the fact that his clients were guilty as charged. But even beyond that, it was a quest for an answer to a complex question that still echoes even in our modern times: "Why do people kill? What would drive two undeniably brilliant, well-to-do young men to cold-blooded murder?"

He was, as you noted, bitterly opposed to capital punishment. Yet, he was also bitterly opposed to the "death" of other things, such as freedom of thought. The greatest example of that would be the following (much shorter - aren't you jussodarned glad??

) passages:

"If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to hustings or in the church.

After while, Your Honor, is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted fagots* to burn the men who dared bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind."

Sounds like Henry Drummond of Inherit the Wind, huh? That's because the authors of Inherit the Wind (Robert E. Lee and another feller whose name escapes me) borrowed a bunch of material verbatim - right outta the Scopes trial transcript. (An e-book of the transcript, which I used here, is available at http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/78295-ebook.htm)

*According to m-w.com, a fagot is a bundle of sticks.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:04 am

To add to Doug's definition, here's what dictionary.com states:

fag·ot also fag·got ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fgt)
n.
A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

tr.v. fag·ot·ed, also fag·got·ed fag·ot·ing, fag·got·ing fag·ots, fag·gots
To bind into a fagot; bundle.
To decorate with fagoting.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:21 am

Thanks. I knew what faggots were in context tho!

It's weird you brought that play up!
Last night I stumbled onto my playbill from our senior class play. I was up for the lead lady but by the time our teacher/director made up her mind in that casting no parts were left for me when she chose someone else.

Well, I was The Mayor's Wife.

Anyway the play was written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.
"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."
Proverbs 11:29

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:30 am

I think that 'across the pond'...that word can also refer to a cigarette ?

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:33 am

Yes. And so which Borden do you think "Inherited The Wind?"

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:23 am

Hmmm...good question...have to think on that one for a minute.

Tracy...

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:22 pm

Now there’s an interesting thought. In a very real sense, we might argue that they all did in one or another way – right down to Bridget Sullivan.
Andrew and Abby went to an uneasy rest at Oak Grove, thence in time to dust. Nevermore would an earthly home be theirs.

Of the “immediates” – well, is it fair to say that Emma was the greater “inheritor” in this instance? Prior to the 4th of August 1892 she had much the same as Andrew and Abby had in the sense that her home was her own – I’m thinking I suppose of the solidity that is often the fruit of peace of mind, so to speak. Emma did not own it in the strict sense, but at least somewhere back of her mind was likely the thought that when her father’s time came, some part ownership of it would pass to her.

From 1893, she and Lizzie shared the French Street house – until the coming of their own “great schism” the result being Emma’s departure, never to return. So in that sense at least, Emma “inherited the wind,” suffering its gales in one or another way for the rest of her days.

Lizzie too “inherited the wind,” but in a vastly different way, which I have not quite fathomed at this point. Not to extend the film metaphor, but the psychological angle of it puts me much in mind of Orson Welles’ Charlie Kane: He had bucketsful and more of money “to buy things” but little else it seemed – the “security of the spirit,” the peace of mind, eluded him. It’s merely my impression, but I sense somehow that the same also proved elusive for Lizzie.

Oh now this is interesting - apparently there's more to that verse in Proverbs. In its entirety, it reads: He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:47 pm

Excellent analysis Doug. I like it.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:30 am

Yes, well done. I agree. I like the dramatic license also.

As to which was the fool who served the wise at heart- I don't find a wise-of-heart.

Maybe Alice Russell.
But in a way she was a fool and wise-at-heart.