Analysis Of Jeffrey Dahmer's Brain: Inside The Mind Of A Serial Killer

Serial killers have always been a mystery to the population and even an obsession for some. Due to the mystery around their origins, there always is a recurring question about those people about whether there are reasons to explain their violent behaviour. The interview with Peter Vronsky, "What Makes A Serial Killer" written by J Oliver Conroy and the article "Jeffrey Dahmer's Brain: Inside the Mind of a Serial Killer" by Carlyn Beccia answer this question by introducing the idea of nature known as the scientific cause, and nurture referred to as the environment cause. The two pieces contribute to the debunking of the mystery of the origins of serial killers, with Beccia's article focusing more on the nature cause for serial killers while

When asked whether there are serial killers who had a normal childhood, Vronsky explains how "Ted Bundy is a classic one. No one has found any evidence of "trauma" in his childhood, in the dramatic, traditional sense. He did, however, grow up believing that his mother was his sister." In contrast to Beccia, Vronsky concentrates his argument on nurture by mainly mentioning childhood. In this quotation, Vronsky employs an understatement. The words "dramatic, traditional sense" downplay any potential trauma Ted Bundy might have experienced in his childhood since it would not be "dramatic" enough to consider. Following this, Vronsky then shifts into a joke adding how Bundy "did, however, grow up believing his mother was his sister." This shift is ironic as it counterarguments his previous statement of Bundy's normal childhood, proving how nurture might have had a role in this killer's case. These two opposite sentences demonstrate Vronsky's argument on how multiple causes can exist as he introduces both aspects of nurture and a missing reason. Vronsky does not stop there. Later, he compares Richard Cottingham, a serial killer he interviewed, to other serial killers as he states "that there is nothing in his past that obviously parallels the early lives of, say, Charles Manson or Henry Lee Lucas. When you read these killers' biographies it is no surprise they turned into what they did." The author starts by suggesting his third option of an absent cause by highlighting how "there is nothing in his past", clearly identifying the absence of an origin. In the second sentence, Vronsky also employs emphasizing diction like "no surprise" to point the normality of what they became due to their tough childhood. Drawing a comparison demonstrates the multiple possibilities that