by Ian Brady
‘We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange indeed if we could not call upon those, who already sapped the strength of the state, for these lesser sacrifices in order to prevent our being swamped by incompetents. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute the general offspring for crimes, or to let them starve from imbecility, society can prevent their propagation by medical means in the first place. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.’
The justification or rationalisation of wrongs performed by the leading lights of so-called civilised society — be it in wars, persecution, discrimination and general law enforcement concentrated upon the ferocious punishment of predominantly blue-collar criminals — does more than suggest that, on the whole, it is the highly educated conformists, not the dissenters or ‘criminals,’ who represent the greatest danger to humanistic culture and the very existence of mankind.
A truly enlightened society, allowing for the varying degrees of intelligence and diverse psychological inclinations of its population, should actively foster and increase ranges of freedom and tolerance. Instead, the politicians contrive to pass increasingly punitive laws, apparently in a futile attempt to deform human nature entirely.
An eclectic society which allows its schools and universities to teach the appositive or contesting works of, let us say, Taoism, Nietzsche, Zen, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Sade, Jung, La Rochefoucauld, Blake, Dostoevsky, Adler, Plato, Machiavelli, Rimbaud, Teilhard de Chardin, Sun Tzu, Stendhal, Marx and many other philosophical, metaphysical and psychological sorcerers who galvanise and illuminate with bolts of aphoristic paradox, should, I reiterate, be prepared to tolerate a more hazardous degree of natural conflict and turmoil.
It is the absolutists and censors who are the bane of progressive thought. Men of genius transcend the tempting knowledge that all is vanity, resist its concomitant urge to suicide, and retain the will to contribute original concepts which may slowly further the evolution of the species.
On the other hand:
In Italy under the rule of the Borgias for thirty years there was bloodshed, war, terror and murder, which produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had five hundred years of brotherly love, peace and democracy. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock!
— The Third Man, Orson Welles
This, perhaps perversely, illustrates that those whose nature thrives on creative destruction also serve to strike inspirational sparks in the surrounding darkness. Contrast and paradox radiate dynamism.
CHAPTER FIVE
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
George Bernard Shaw
Many variations of the amoral interpretation of dualism are found in the sphere of criminology. For instance, is it not self-evident that the detective, in order to outwit the criminal he hunts, must not only be able to duplicate the — for want of a better word — abnormal thought processes of his quarry, but also strive to excel in corrupt faculties?
The serial killer and the detective, to a significant extent, necessarily share many characteristics, including a common unorthodox philosophy in tandem with solitary dedication and commitment. Both protagonists must be ruthless in purpose, astute in deceit, clear in strategy; temper self-confidence with caution; cultivate doubt where there is certainty and certainty where there is doubt; feign incompetence to provoke overconfidence; nourish arrogance by fake humility; deny, affirm and divert with dexterity as tactics dictate; incite anger to obtain the unguarded response and sow confusion; exude synthetic sympathy for trust whilst doubting everyone; regard all individuals as essentially corrupt and guided by self-interest; live and breathe moral and legal relativism whilst projecting moral and legal rectitude; and, above all, as already postulated, believe and act in the certainty that the end always justifies the means.
Not that any homicide detective would publicly admit to owning most of the above amoral qualities or killer instincts. In this they are much like their brethren in the vice squad who, in reading and viewing pornographic material every day, year in year out, to assess whether they are liable to render the public depraved and corrupt, nevertheless claim self-immunity. To successfully deceive others they must to a significant degree deceive themselves.
Reason’s a thing we dimly see in sleep.
— The Birds Fall Down, Rebecca West
The captured serial killer, with no hope of freedom, invariably sloughs off the debilitating scales of hypocrisy and sanctimony, hazards self-analysis, and indulges the luxury of cynical honesty which can no longer further or hinder lost ambition. Disinterest keens an omnipotent view of the human chessboard.
By thy cold breast and serpent smile,
By thy unfathom’d gulfs of guile,
By that most seeming virtuous eye,
By thy shut soul’s hypocrisy,
By the perfection of thy art
Which pass’d for human thine own heart;
By thy delight in others’ pain,
And by the brotherhood of Cain,
I call upon thee! and compel
Thyself to be thy proper Hell!
— Lord Byron
The term ‘serial killer’ is used to describe a person who kills spasmodically over a comparatively lengthy period of time, as opposed to the ‘mass murderer,’ who usually kills all his victims in one bloody scenario.
It is generally accepted that the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime headquarters in Quantico, Virginia, originated the formal concept of psychological profiling, a method of projecting the probable traits and characteristics of an unidentified, usually violent criminal.
This art has given rise to quite a lucrative industry, popularised by such box-office successes as Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs, both of which films featured the fictitious, insane serial-killer-psychiatrist Dr Hannibal Lecter (played by Brian Cox and Anthony Hopkins, respectively).
Psychiatry, being an art, is only as good as the individual practitioner. Mediocre forensic psychiatrists, particularly those in penal and academic circles in America and Britain, smitten by the popular Lecter Syndrome, have jockeyed for fame and fortune by loudly proclaiming they have some special psychological insight into the ‘criminal mind’; ironically, one could therefore interpret such a claim as inadvertent admission that they themselves possess more criminal traits and characteristics than average.
If lucky enough to have had even one success out of several hundred stabs in the dark, these exponents magnify it by self-publicity and try to found a profitable media career on it. In my opinion, this commercial factor taints and colors all of their works. In reality, the less they perceive, the more others believe — especially police upper echelons, their brains atrophied by abuse of power and expense-account alcohol. Based on a study of such self-serving amateurs, I do not hesitate to state that one could achieve a higher percentage of success with a Tarot pack.
While it is to some extent praiseworthy that urban police outfits recognise the positive potential of expert psychological profilers (namely the FBI unit at Quantico), it is also somewhat perplexing. The scientific methodology refined by expert profilers should be used automatically by anyone claiming to be a professional detective, instead of further straining the thinly spread resources of the Quantico facility.
Last but not least, the methodology of second- or third-rung prophets of serial killing profiling is usually plagiarised from research published by the formidable FBI Psychological Profiling Center at Quantico. The media’s vested interest is to deliberately inflate, out of greed to sell newspapers and boost TV ratings, an immense and often dangerous public hysteria and panic regarding the serial killer.
Can one reasonably doubt that a great volume of sensational publicity generates an unhealthy ethos, in which serial ki
llers are so glamorised, their methodology so widely disseminated, as to tempt others to copy them, if not revere them as the prophets of risk and individual action, in a society overwhelmed and bogged down by the dull courtiers and ass-kissers of celebrity culture?
To my certain knowledge, a minimum of six impressionable individuals have sought to emulate my crimes; two killed, were caught and committed suicide; another two are serving life sentences for multiple murder; the remaining two are still free and the body count continues to mount.
The mere accumulation of forensic information in itself does not predicate expertise. A good profiler must possess instinctive dexterity to juggle multiple concepts and associations with some originality. Genius. The FBI, recently accused of shabby incompetence and misconduct, is not infallible.
One very important factor has been completely overlooked by both the shallow and the professional profilers.
All intelligent individuals, criminal or otherwise, have a hidden agenda. Something so precious to the psyche that it can be confided to no one. Forensic science has not yet triumphed over ‘the stuff as dreams are made on.’
Therefore most captured serial killers will confess to any motive in order to conceal the hidden agenda. This not only leaves a significant gap in psychological data but also introduces wild cards.
What is more, it is axiomatic that many criminals themselves have an instinctive or acquired grasp of the forensic sciences. Some are ardent students of published forensic research. Understandably so — their continued freedom or very life literally depends upon keeping up to date. Theoretically, the criminal and his empirical practices should always have a competitive edge over academic assumptions. The innovative or inspired pupil invariably drains the master of knowledge and adds it to his own practical expertise.
In the course of time, leaps in understanding forensic science are double-edged. A pair of gloves can take care of fingerprints, but how does the killer achieve the more complex task of hiding a crime signature or personality print from the expert profiler?
Most of the traits and characteristics that create the crime signature are rooted at a subconscious level, influencing the modus operandi increasingly, especially when murder ceases to be a novelty and becomes merely an unsatisfying contest with the law of diminishing returns.
Most power, once attained, becomes a curiously empty experience. Routine is the greatest danger to the security of the serial killer, decreasing his alertness, innovation and caution. He becomes sloppy.
This syndrome also helps to explain, in many instances, why the killer’s crimes become more frequent or outrageous; he is chasing a chimera, a homicidal ideal, becoming more frustrated with each successive failure.
The murders of Jack the Ripper exemplify both aspects of this syndrome. He, in common with other uncaught serial killers whose crimes mysteriously ceased, perhaps was insightful enough to realise the futility of his search for the ultimate experience, or, conversely, perhaps it was discovered in the final murder.
Accepting this premise in general, one might tentatively suggest that the successful criminal student remains undetected mainly by virtue of knowing when to stop.
But what of others who do not possess this faculty? How have they avoided capture? Once this type of killer has mastered the psychological principles involved, knowing precisely what the profilers are searching for and tabulating, his next logical step would be to discover the most effective way not only to neutralise the danger but also shape it to his advantage, like any competent chess-player.
For instance, as already opined, he may adopt auto-hypnosis techniques to selectively modify the psyche at a subconscious level, and systematically create the thought processes of a second personality. Or, in Jungian terms, assume the identities of multiple personae to a clinically affective extent, masking and transiently modifying his true thought patterns and emotions, whilst retaining the essential criminal consciousness to exert comprehensive control over his multiple creations.
The achievement of conscious control of the subconscious may seem paradoxical or theoretical, but I assure you, from personal study and experience, that it can be accomplished. Raskolnikov, had he applied such auto-hypnosis techniques, would not have been troubled by ‘conscience,’ the unregulated influence of subconscious social-conditioning.
Variations of this practical methodology, of converting a potential disadvantage to personal advantage, could well be applied even more simply in the sophisticated field of genetics, now that law enforcement agencies have publicly (and, in tactical/strategic terms, foolishly) affirmed their belief that each individual’s DNA is practically as unique as their fingerprints. In which case, to fabricate innocence, the criminal need only (a) ensure he leaves no samples of his own DNA at the scene of the crime; (b) prior to the crime, obtain by recondite means the DNA substances/traces of some innocent individual to plant on the victim or at the crime scene.
Thus, in judo fashion, the strength of almost every advance in forensic science can be turned against itself by the educated criminal.
After all, in a general philosophical/theological sense, education is the first step on the road to corruption: the loss of innocence. And, as already touched upon, objective observation of the powerful and influential inculcates that higher education/intelligence should never be automatically equated with higher humanism, or lack of criminal tendencies.
Further advances in the sphere of genetic research have prompted those with vested interest (political and financial) in the lucrative law enforcement industry to set up expensive research programmes to isolate the ‘killer genes’ that allegedly develop ‘cold-blooded killers.’
One must assume the researchers arrogantly mean cold-blooded criminal killers, as opposed to cold-blooded legalised killers, and that they can differentiate between the two. In which case, the research becomes patently absurd — a sort of genetic fortune-telling, in which the psychic scientists will claim to see invisible black hats on illegal killer genes. A concept crazier, you might think, than the imaginary ‘Star Wars’ defence system dreamt up by President Reagan to ward off the ‘evil empire’ of Russia.
It is therefore significant that the scientists hunting ‘killer genes’ have begun their research in asylums for the criminally insane, where presumably they feel more at home, less open to criticism, and less constrained by moral and ethical considerations. These genetic boffins, arguably suffering from delusional disorders themselves, hope, rather than more justifiably dread, that one day they will be able to identify ‘killer genes’ in babies and apply preventative drugs — or, more Reagan-like, shoot laser beams at the ‘evil’ genes.
I should point out that I for one would not assist in any such research. If they require ‘abnormal’ personalities to experiment upon, let them use their own, or those of politicians and other power brokers.
I believe it was Woody Allen who advanced the theoretical connection between excessive masturbation and those who enter politics. The human propensity to see evil in all others needs no form of further encouragement.
Self-delusion is an almost inevitable consequence of life in the modern world, or perhaps even a necessity, to stave off encroaching madness or a collective lemming-like rush to the brink.
In my assessment, any person nowadays who does not suffer from some form and degree of personality disorder should, by definition, be regarded as highly suspect, dangerous and possibly certifiable.
At this juncture, let me again partly define my relativistic perception/conception of what is meant by ‘criminal.’
Essentially, to one believing in legal and moral relativism, legalities, moralities and ethics are simply questions of geography, passing modes of fashion and taste, shaped and dictated by the prevailing ruling class of whatever country one happens to be in at a certain time.
In some instances, more from political expediency than altruistic generosity, a few of the laws and morals may, unavoidably as it were, reflect the wishes and intere
sts of the population as a whole. It therefore follows that criminality is not necessarily indicative of innate evil in any person, nor is an ostensible lack of criminality illustrative of innate good; both of these polarised conditions are merely personal responses to artificial, externally applied criteria or stimuli, imposed by a political minority or capriciously extant majority of conformists upon a more discerning minority of nonconformists.
This further postulates that criminality is not always the inherent attribute of a specific act, but often the consequence of a variable power or majority successfully defining the said act as ‘criminal.’
Laws and morals are not guided or decided by divine tablets handed down from the Mount but by secular power or tyranny of numbers. Audience reaction, rather than the discriminating wisdom and inherent superiority of individual judgment, is the critical factor in defining a ‘criminal,’ an ‘outsider,’ someone not running with the herd or going with the prevailing popular flow.
Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
— Sir John Harington (1561–1612)
If this is accepted as true and valid, one can better understand why the serial killer just as selfishly reasons: why let one’s actions be constrained by basic mathematics, vote-hungry politicians, superstitious fear of a Supreme Being, or indeed anyone at all?
Moreover, he may logically conclude it was obviously fortunate that the majority should let their thoughts and horizons be thus restricted. Their critical disability would enhance his personal advantage, existential vitality and initiative, as well as adding an aesthetic, rounded satisfaction to life in general, and zest to the hunt in particular.
He experiences the exhilarating superiority of the freelance predator; each act not only affirming his unfettered existence to the world but also the failure to succeed by extant codes and rules of society. Knowing his strengths and limitations he has determined to prove himself a villain, that being the only natural sphere in which he can shine.