Inside the Mind of Jeffrey Dahmer: The Cannibal Killer (2024)

My thanks to Ad Lib Publishers, Christopher Berry-Dee and Netgalley.
This turned out to be a fairly decent book. Though I had to spend some time slogging through a very opinionated author. Once he realized that this was a book about Jeffrey Dahmer, and not his own arrogant self, it got slightly better.
Within the first 4 pages Mr. Berry-Dee insulted liberal's "that's me!" Worse? He said we were bible thumpers? Really? I've been called an ungodly heathen quite a lot, but never a bible thumper! "My word, not his." Also, according to the author most of us older women would have loved Dahmer because he kept his apartment tidy! What? That makes no freaking sense! Was there a book on his shelf? No, just skulls!
Looking into Mr. Berry-Dees history, it's been alleged that he is a pedophile and someone who doesn't pay his bills. I'm not saying it's true or not. I'm just saying that back in 2008 he allegedly did some awful things, and then took off. He couldn't be found.
Why am I bringing this up? Because the author seems to have no problem accusing others of things of which he has no clue about. I'm just returning the favor.
Also? I'm liberal as anything, but I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. That is not what this asshole author would expect either!

"It was my way of remembering their appearance, their physical beauty. I always wanted to keep...if I couldn't keep them with me whole, I at least could keep their skeletons." - Dahmer, The Journal Times, 8 February 1993

Disturbing.

I am in the outlier camp because I enjoyed (if that is the right word) this book. Yes, the prologue is a bit much it will rub many readers the wrong way. I wonder if some stopped reading there. I could see how one might want to put the book down at that point. I read on an I found the book to be interesting.

Perhaps the title is not the best. I don't think we really got into the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer here, but the author did talk about his childhood, his upbringing, his parents’ relationship, his time in the military and those he killed.

I appreciate that the author named his victims. So many times, the focus is on the killer. We remember serial killers’ names. They sicken us, they frighten us, we can't comprehend how they could do such unspeakable acts, we want to know more. Why? I'm scared of spiders, but I don't want to know more about them. Serial killers get a cult level status. While those who suffered unmeasurable pain, anguish and the loss of their lives are only remembered by their loved ones. Each victim is named. Yes, the author tells how Dahmer lured them and killed them as well. This book is not easy reading. Not at all.

I was back to being appalled and sickened at the police officers who sent fourteen-year-old, Konerak Sinthasomphone back into Dahmer's lair after he escaped and was being helped by two women. How they didn't take the women seriously. How they could ignore a naked bleeding teen and send him back to the horrors that awaited him. How they laughed about their 'lovers' quarrel. Again, this is not easy reading.

Are there better books out there on Dahmer? Yes. But once I got past the prologue, which is annoying, the author does focus on Dahmer. I enjoyed reading the counts and charges against him.
True, one could read about this on Wikipedia, but I requested the book and although, I was hoping for more psychology, I wasn't disappointed.

If you can get past the prologue, it isn't half bad. True, you could skip the book and go to Wikipedia, but I'm reviewing this book and not that site.

Thank you to Ad Lib books and NetGalley who provided me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. All the comments and opinions expressed in this review are my own.

Read more of my reviews at www.openbookposts.com

I should never try another of this author's works. His narrative style comes across as all-knowledgeable, arrogant and self-centered, while at the same time spending far too often directly quoting others. It seemed to me that he was more excited on inserting his experiences meeting other serial killers, while also dropping his political and religious views in there for absolutely no reason at all.

I’ve read quite a few books on Dahmer, but I found this one a slog. Too much blah blah, and opinionated attitude for me to put much stock in this author’s book. I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.

I went into this book expecting an informative telling of Jeffery Dahmers life. Instead I got an author who is very fond of himself telling his perspective and opinions on not just Dahmer but a variety of topics and killers. The first few chapters are purely just a chance for the author to brag about his career and all the killers he has met and spoke with (none of which relate to Dahmer or his story). Following this the author claims crazy things like Dahmer was a cannibal because his mother didn’t breastfeed him and he didn’t kill animals as a child like most killer because he was gay. Not only this it’s very clear throughout the book that the author isn’t accepting of mental illness not only in Dahmers case (Which i’m not trying to excuse his behavior) but also in Dahmers mothers case as he often blames her mental illness for why Dahmer turns out to be a killer and not Dahmers abusive father (who the author describes as a hardworking man and excuses the abuse as his wife was hard to live with because of her mental illness). He later goes onto a rant about psychologists and their place is the court room. This book is less of an unbiased informative killer analysis and more a very biased retelling of what happened. The author brushes over experts or evidence that does not support his opinions and instead gives a deep analysis on evidence and professionals who support his opinions.

if you’re looking for more information on Dahmer this isn’t the book for you. You wouldn’t believe this was written in 2022 and not 1922.

Not my cup of tea. It was too much subjective.

Where to begin... this is the first and last time I read anything by this author. I decided to read this book because I hadn't read anything about Jeffrey Dahmer before, but since Christopher Berry-Dee quotes so many better authors in his book, I now have a list of other and hopefully better books to try.

Things I hated about this book, in bullet point format:
- the grammatical errors are so frequent it's quite embarrassing. Entire words missed out where one should obviously be, for example "...in a determined effort try to turn the youth into a...", he has clearly missed the word "to" between "effort" and "try"
- the sheer number of times he uses the words "layer-cake" and "metamorphose" is frankly quite annoying
- the patronising attempt of making the content lighthearted and directly questioning the reader as if the book is a conversation with a child
- if you removed all the words belonging to other authors, the book would be a third shorter
- the unnecessary reference to George Floyd felt like an attempt to be "current". Objection, relevance?
- HOW HE INCORRECTLY NAMED THE UNABOMBER AS "RICHARD KUKLINSKI" - if you're going to write a book on serial killers, at least get their names correct. The unabomber is Ted Kaczynski.
- his summary was initially mostly about OTHER serial killers. His ending paragraph was not words of his own, but of Ted Bundy's
- the appendix felt like an attempt to bulk the book out a little and give it more pages; totally unnecessary to give an itemised list of inventory and quoting the Milwaukee police department inventory number

Overall, this was an embarrassingly poor insight into the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer, as the title would otherwise lead you to believe. Each chapter (some merely a page and half) devoted to his victims was such a brief description and lacked any depth at all. This man has the audacity to run a master class (see his instagram page) on how to become a best selling author when his books are grammatically and factually incorrect from cover to cover. What a waste of my time I spent reading this.

Rant over!

i have mixed opinions on this book. i picked it up when i saw it in a charity shop as i thought it would be interesting to get the facts of what actually happened in the case of jeffrey dahmer after watching the recent (and controversial to say the least) netflix show on the case.

i liked how the book was in a somewhat chronological order, and included a lot about jeffrey’s early years and home life, simultaneously explaining the cumulation of events and factors which perhaps contributed to and lead him to commit the heinous acts we now sadly know him for. i like how the book attempts to honour the victims by including a chapter on each of them in order, however i feel like some were quite rushed, especially the one on Anthony ‘Tony’ Hughes, although i understand that there were many victims to be discussed, and a lot of things to cover about the case in the book.

however i didn’t like how opinionated the author was from the start, and although i sometimes appreciate jokes / dark humour when appropriate to lighten the mood when speaking about heavy topics, i found the jokes in this book pretty cringe to be honest.
i thought the racial element of the case (how dahmer predominantly chose people of a minority ethnic background, and how dahmer managed to get away with his crimes for longer because of the police’s attitude to people of a minority ethnic background in the area) was quite glossed over throughout the book, and not really discussed.
i thought the chapter at the end of the book about how psychiatrists and psychologists assessed dahmer’s mental state at the time of his crimes was written quite weirdly to be honest - it was mostly an argument on how psychologists and psychiatrists ‘don’t get along’, and why this can cause serious consequences (evidenced through the inclusion of the case of arthur john shawross which seemed a bit of a tangent because the story, although important in its own right, is irrelevant to the book and the case in question).
i also think it was weird how there were a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes in this book, as it was written by a reputable and well renowned criminologist (where was the proof reading???)

all in all i’m glad i read this book - as a true crime nerd, it was interesting to hear the facts of what actually happened, and i liked the inclusion of sections about the victims and their lives (as brief as they may be), however i didn’t really like how the book was written and how opinionated the author was all the way through. i think there are probably better books about this case out there (although it is significantly better than the netflix show, for obvious reasons).

Los van dat de foto's en korte samenvattingen op het internet over de moorden van deze man al redelijk voor zich spraken was het erg interessant om dit boek open te slaan waarin de levensloop van Jeffrey "Jeff" Dahmer onder de loep wordt genomen.

Met een aandachtszieke moeder en een gereformeerde vader had hij niet bepaald een lekkere jeugd, waarin het wel duidelijk is dat een groot deel van zijn mentale toestand te wijten is aan dit gezin: heel soms is er bijgesprongen maar deze jongen heeft zichzelf, logischerwijs zonder veel vriendjes, alles moeten aanleren en dan helpt de fascinatie voor dode dieren ook niet mee.

Toen hij, na de zoveelste verhuizing, bij zijn oma in de kelder is gaan wonen is hij rustig begonnen met moorden: waar het eerst mislukt, is het daarna tweemaal onder invloed van alcohol wel raak: meenemen met een smoes om de jongen/man (soms minderjarigen) daarna te drogeren, verminken, verkrachten en te vermoorden: niet per se in die volgorde. Daarna werkt die het lichaam compleet weg (0 sporen) maar later in zijn leven en het boek volgen de moorden zich rap op elkaar op (soms zelfs maar 1,5 pagina per moord), zonder alcohol en begint die zelfs dingen te bewaren: eerst schedels, daarna handen, piemels en het vlees zelf. Dat laatste is tevens ook vaak zijn avondeten.

Los van dat het een walgelijk patroon is, mogen we van geluk spreken dat de beste man zoveel foto's en "souvenirs" bewaarde en een perfect geheugen heeft over zijn slachtoffers, dus ook over diegenen zonder stoffelijke resten (dus lege kisten/crematies voor nabestaanden) uitgebreid verslag deed. Ik ben niet verrast dat de beste man het nog geen maand volhield in de gevangenis, waarna die bij een van de eerste momenten zonder zijn persoonlijke escort is doodgeslagen met een halter.

Het boek leest snel weg, mede vanwege de simpele schrijfstijl (love it), je moet soms even stilstaan bij waar je over leest. De moorden en feiten staan ff onder elkaar in de appendix, dat is een duidelijke afsluiting.

Hadden eventueel plaatjes in het boek gekund, nu stond bij elk hoofdstuk het hoofd van Dahmer en die heb ik inmiddels wel gezien. Foto's van slachtoffers zou indruk maken.

Goed boek, maar een semi-aanrader. Je moet maar van true-crime houden.

Once the author remembered this was a book about Jeffrey Dahmer and not himself, some interesting information was forthcoming. There is a lot of judgement and subjectivity in this account with Dahmer’s mother the target of much of this. These aspects detracted from how seriously I felt the book could be taken as a factual account of the crimes and person of Jeffrey Dahmer. It did trigger me to look into other sources and I was surprised by apparent duplication with Wikipedia content. While I appreciate receiving an advance copy from NetGalley, this is my honest review.

This book had potential, but the author dropped the ball here. He came across as unbearably pompous and derogatory towards everyone working on the case, not just Dahmer himself. Lee ridiculed the defense team for doing their job, made his disgust at Dahmer’s mentally ill mother blatant, and emphasized the superiority of his own opinion over other psychologists. Between his tirades against religious groups, Lee did present some interesting information about Dahmer’s childhood. However, much of this can be found in other books. Overall, this book did not do a deep dive inside Dahmer’s mind as promised. Reiterating how depraved he was does not provide readers with new insights into the case.

This is decent, but it is begging for an editor. No shade to the ideas presented but there are typos/factual mistakes that could be easily remedied. Stuff we all have done before in writing without someone reading it back to us.

Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the serial killers that I didn’t know too much about and this book was definitely a revelation. It takes you through from Dahmer being born right up to his death and a lot of the in between.
I’ve never read this author before but am aware of some of his other books and I think that this book was a good one to start with. I liked that we delved into Dahmer’s childhood and found some possible triggers from there but also that the author reinforced that not every child that suffers a specific trauma in their childhood becomes a serial killer, as I think it is important that the reader is reminded of this each time.
I also liked how there was a chapter for each of the victims and also in the appendix there were the charges in more detail for each victim too. Far too often when reading or watching documentaries about serial killers their victims are glossed over and forgotten while their killer’s name is remembered.
There were a few things that I disliked about this book, the main one being the whole chapter that seemed to be dedicated to slagging off psychiatrists and psychologists. While psychology is not an exact science and different people in the profession can come to different conclusions, I feel that the author spent too many pages trying to prove his point. I also felt that a lot of contempt for the profession was coming through in the writing, which, as somebody who wants to become a psychologist, is not something that I appreciated. I understand that everyone has their opinion on it, but I felt that far too much time was spent trying to get his point across.
There were also a few mistakes that made it hard to make sense of a few things, I understand that it has only just been published and there will be a few mistakes (there was a repeated word in a sentence that wasn’t needed) but when it is an obvious mistake with a date (in the Anthony Hughes chapter it says that he was last seen on 24th September 1991 and then 2 chapters below it says that his family were notified of his death on 5th July 1991) it makes for very confusing reading.
I also found that a lot of the time Christopher Berry-Dee referred to the book written by Brian Masters, I’m unsure if this was only because he hasn’t spoken to Dahmer in person while Masters did but at times I felt like I should have just picked up his book instead. I also found that sometimes the author seemed to boast about which serial killers he had met in real life when he didn’t need to.
Overall, I liked the humour in the book and found the writing style easy to get on with. It wasn’t a pleasant book (what book about a serial killer is?) but it was well written. I would pick up other books by this author in the future. Thank you to The Motherload book club on Facebook for the opportunity to win this book in a giveaway and the publisher Ad Lib for my copy!

Admittedly I have never read this kind of book before so I did not really know what to expect and (currently) have no other true crime book to compare it to.
Personally I did not like this book as the author was more interested in explaining and rambling about himself, I picked this book up to read about the killer not the author. However, I did that he referenced a couple other books to debate the claims made in said books but it was still dripping with condescending tones rather than allowing the reader to make their own mind up from the thoughts he had brought up.
Many of the authors claims are just claims with not a lot or very basic evidence, if he had spoken to professionals it may have given his claims more weight. I did think that it was interesting to compare killers to try and understand why they did what they did, he immediately ruined this by waffling on after the point about information that does not matter.
I thought that the entry at the back with the court statements and the evidence presented was the most interesting part of the book.
I did finish this book but at what cost?

Took me a while to read this, I had to be in the mood to want to finish it.

I found it interesting and informative. Unfortunate crimes were committed and I feel for the friends and families of the victims.

Not sure how I feel about his death… Did he deserve to be murdered, or should he have lived in prison until the day he died naturally?

I’d recommend the book if you want to learn more about him. Berry-Dee writes several books regarding serial killers but this, I believe, is his only stand-alone book fixated on one killer at a time. Now to watch the Netflix series!

Scarcely will you read an author overshadow his subject with more aggressive narcissism than this guy.

Review to follow xxx

Potentially the title is misleading, I didn’t feel like we truly got into the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer.

What we did get was an interesting delve into his childhood, his parent’s relationship, his life leading up to the murders and potentially trigger points that could have led to Dahmer becoming what he did.

The prologue is unnecessary, where author loves himself a little too much during, but once he branches into actually talking about Dahmer it picks up.

I did appreciate how the author named the victims, and continued to give them names. A chapter, no matter how small it was, dedicated to each of them. Sometimes, when we get so fascinated with these murderers and what makes them “tick”, we forget those who were killed by them. All that is left is family and other loved ones mourning their loss.

Overall, it was a decent, quick read on Dahmer. But if you want more of a detailed psychological investigation into his mind, I am sure there will be more suitable books available.

Christopher lures you in with a 'author Christopher berry-dee is the man who talks to serial killers' on the back page which then tells you the first chapter he never got a chance to speak to Jeff dahmer as he took on another case instead. So this book is made up on facts taken from similar books, files and his own opinion. This book is a quick read however, there were a couple of grammatical errors and repeated/missing words within each chapter and one quote from Jeff was repeated twice in the same chapter. The book clearly didn't have someone read over and check it.

I found this book quite hard to read in the beginning didn’t like the way it was written but did when I got further into it. I liked that it was written from when born to his death and talked about what happened in his life that meant of triggered the way he was. I don’t know how he got away with it for so long

I enjoyed this book, it's not for the faint hearted or squeamish. Jeffrey Dahmer was a cold hearted serial killer.

This review needs to start with one statement, and one that I think is very important; the author claims to have laid within this book the motivations and possible understandings of Dahmer and his crimes, and subsequently has lied to all his readers just in the premise of his book alone.
In order to give this review in a coherent manner, as I take notes while reading, I’m going to separate it into a few sections that I’ll label as I go. I’ve never had to write reviews on Google Docs before posting to Goodreads, but this book infuriated me so deeply within the last 20% of its page count that I feel the need to write everything out so everyone can understand just why this book does not deserve to be touted as “Inside the Mind of Jeffrey Dahmer.” Better put, this book is “The Recap of Jeffrey Dahmer and the Nonsensical Gripes of the Author”.

CLINICAL ISSUES
My first general issues stem, in all honesty, from the way this book is written. Like most serial killer biographies, it gives an account of Jeffrey as a child to his adulthood, chronicling his activities, his family, his environments, etc., and eventually his horrific crimes and what followed. That’s all fine and dandy, it’s to be expected, but in the prologue the author promises the building of a “layer cake”--in layman’s terms, a building of psychological assessment throughout different parts of his life to help try to understand his psyche.
This book parades itself as a look inside his mind. For reference, I have a very rudimentary understanding of psychology, having taken a basics class, a developmental class, and an abnormal psychology class all at the beginner’s collegiate level… And I was still sitting there, asking, “Why do I feel like you could be talking about so many psychological theories you haven’t mentioned?” A beginner should read a book looking into the mind of a killer and be looking up terms and theories, not proposing ones the author could have mentioned. Additionally, the closest thing to psychological theory in this book is the proposal of attachment theory for a brief moment. For a book on psychology, a lot of the runtime is solely devoted to the author explaining Jeffrey’s life in a very surface-level way, every once in a while interjecting with tangents and obvious statements of, “That probably made him sad.”
Now, skipping over the slight issues I have such as using the same quote from Dahmer twice about his parents’ divorce—this book is written by a man and that is clear. When discussing Joyce and Lionel, Jeffrey’s parents, the language used around Joyce is very accusatory, very cruel, saying she’s needy and neglectful, only diving into a few of her statements without so much as a note of sympathy. Lionel, however, seems to be treated more kindly, being written as a father concerned for how his own way of living had impacted Jeffrey. This goes without mentioning the author never touching upon how the sudden removal of Joyce and his younger brother from his life could have possibly affected young Jeffrey. So, not only does he blatantly harbor more dislike for Joyce (where they’re really both at fault), but he’s not even looking at big parts of the childhood that aren’t typically explored, which a book on psychology of a killer ought to.
Additionally, I feel that when you’re trying to see how things are affecting a subject, a writer must try to convey what it’s like to be that individual, rather than talking about that individual. It’s sort of the outside-looking-in versus trying to be in his shoes. The author very clearly does not take the in-depth approach; as previously mentioned, the information and “insight” (or lack thereof) is nothing new or even digging into psychology—into the mind.
I will also take a moment to point out that, despite this book clearly being a product of its time, I couldn’t for the life of me pinpoint when it was written. Despite the mentions of murderers incarcerated long after Dahmer and even the George Floyd case, the author also speaks about the DSM-III-R like it’s the current version of the DSM. Yes, it was the version out in 1980 and for a while thereafter, but it’s not the current edition, which ideally would be considered as psychology is an ever-evolving science… granted, I’ll talk more about that when I detail other gripes with this book.
As I said, the book moves on to his later lives, eventually entire sections being devoted to individual victims. There’s talk of his methodology, talk of the MO, mention of the trophies and cannibalism, yet there’s nothing more in-depth. In a book trying to dissect a serial killer’s psyche, one could mention how the consuming of others could have been seen as a man who tried to turn others into obedient zombies so they couldn’t leave as keeping his victims with him. There’s a treasure trove of abandonment issues, relationship issues, feeling like you can’t have people near you issues that could be explored. This was even referenced earlier in the book when Dahmer was a child and established that being with others was destruction, but, if I recall, that was a quote from another author that this author is referencing. Clearly, in terms of psychology, this author can only pull from others, but has nothing of note to contribute, nor does he try. I honestly feel I could write a better paper, and I’m just a 22-year-old autistic woman with only basic knowledge on most things in this case.
Now, when the author gets to the legal case, this is where the novel began to fall apart for me. I’ll continue on the more clinical aspects I didn’t like before moving to the rest. Firstly, the author spends a paragraph trying to explain the difference between murder and homicide in Wisconsin, as it seems to differ depending on which is used in court. The author says something along the lines of George Floyd’s death in 2020 being an example, but at the end of the paragraph adds, “But if you can somehow understand this topic, you’re better than me!” You’d think someone who is trying to explain a crucial element of a criminal case for the killer they’re writing about would take more time to try to understand it, let alone explain to his readers. Therefore, I am wholly convinced that whole section was just to name-drop George Floyd’s unfair death at the hands of cops just to add a sprinkle of recent in-real-life crime, though it feels completely unrelated to the current subject. He was also mentioned earlier when discussing the upheaval of the police force during the Dahmer case, but again, seemingly just to throw his name in there. I can’t say I approve of mentioning another case, especially one as horrific and disheartening as Floyd’s, seemingly just with the intention to have a name-drop, which seems callous. I know the author likes dark humor, but that is just crass.

PERSONAL ISSUES
The real meat and potatoes of this whole diatribe against this book stems from this topic. I was enjoying the book until the 80% mark, but then the author began to inject his own ideas into the court case itself, and, well… As respectfully as I can muster, this author is a jerk.
Throughout the book, there is no humanization of Jeffrey Dahmer at all which is completely understandable. Nobody wants to humanize a killer and cannibal, and rightfully he doesn’t deserve to be humanized, but when trying to look into psychology of a subject you need to humanize to be able to understand their motives and thinking a little more. I think that’s one of the biggest pieces of this book that doesn’t work. The author cannot for a moment try to get inside Jeffrey’s head, and therefore the entire premise of this book is a sham. Mostly, like I said, this book is a recap until the author begins spewing his own perspective, which is an entirely asinine perspective, if you ask me.
The author is a very condescending individual. Throughout the book, he uses the phrase, “Can you see Jeff now?” when trying to get the reader to envision how Jeffrey was feeling. First of all, most people would be angry if they lost their job and had no money, or sad if their parents were divorcing, or worried when cops walk into his home and he knows he’s done something. Hell, I worry if I see a cop and I haven’t done anything wrong. The phrase is seemingly used when the author says to himself, “Oh sh*t, I haven’t really mentioned what’s going on in Jeff’s head for a while now… uh… Okay, genius! I’ll just tell them how any ordinary person would react, but say it’s something specific to Jeff!” Can you see this author now? I certainly can: A man writing a book he has no business writing. He even admits he’s not a psychology expert, and neither am I, but…
Now we reach the part where I turned against this author. He’s not an expert in psychology, but is attempting to write a book on the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer. When you hit the last quarter of the book, though, the author readily expresses his disdain for psychology as a whole! The author, at the start of this train-wreck final quarter, says something along the lines of psychiatrists and psychologists, since science is not as factual as other sciences, are the least equipped to look at the criminal mind due to bias. I sat up and said, “Did you really just say that?” Dude, everyone in the court room has biases, and if those who study the known elements of psychology can’t have a professional stance on the mind, who the f*ck can?
It became apparent that the author has a disdain for those who study psychology as a whole. At one point, he mentions a criminal named Shawcross. To sum up, he was a murderer whose trial was rushed and plea deal was taken. He was sent to a psychiatric facility, and convinced the doctors he could be released and was not a danger. The author then says those to blame for his following killing spree are those who deemed him able to be released. Seriously? Don’t blame those in the system who rushed the trial to save money, who allowed the plea deal? You’re going to blame those who were, by your own admission, manipulated by a psychopath? The author makes a great deal pointing out how Dahmer and those like him are master manipulators, but wants to blame those who are manipulated rather than those who didn’t properly try and convict him on his heinous crimes? The same way his language made it clear he disliked Joyce but somewhat sympathized with Lionel, the same way his arguments reflect his own biases against the science of psychology. He makes it very clear while writing a book on psychology of a killer that he denounces psychology, calling it a pseudo-science and acting like it has no bearing in criminal trials and that psychiatrists are snake oil salesmen meant to pacify the masses. He makes it clear he thinks the insanity defense is stupid—which it is—but at the same time also says that psychiatry ought to not have a place in the courtroom. I feel like this is due to the notion that psychology is meant only as a means to get criminals off easily, which it often isn’t. The author seems to despise the insanity plea, not psychologists, but also appears to lump it together. He also mentions how psychologists positions can be swayed by whom they are employed, being defense or prosecution, and thus shouldn’t be trusted, but can’t the same be said of any individual? Lawyers, forensic experts, witnesses? So why are those studying psychology seemingly he only ones he calls out? Honestly, I think it’s because he dislikes a science where rules aren’t hard and fast, they aren’t set and written out without extenuating circ*mstances. Unfortunately, sir, psychology is unique to everyone, and can’t be summed up like a flow chart.
For someone writing a book delving into the mind of a killer while denouncing psychology, he also throws around diagnoses a lot. He keeps referring to Dahmer as a psychopath, but constantly mentions the ASPD diagnosis and the sociopath rhetoric. All of this makes sense, but for a book written in 2022, you think he’d know all those can’t be true at the same time, as the DSM-5 doesn’t allow it. I mean, maybe the rules were different in the 90s when the trial took place, but the fact of the matter is there doesn’t seem to be a consistency. Some arguments are pulled from modern-day papers, but others are pulled from outdated works like the DSM-III-R which were relevant at the time, but you can’t say both modern and past sources are correct.
I’d also like to point out one section where the author is discussing Phillip Resnick and his argument on “primary necrophilia”, disapproving of the “primary” part—which makes no sense other than contributing to his tangential ego-stroking. The primary most likely refers to how the necrophilia was the main goal, but pointing out his desire for live partners also erases the idea that Dahmer was insane and only after dead bodies, that he knew he could have live partners and chose to do all this… and the author makes it sound like Resnick is wrong with some roundabout logic hinging on the “primary”? He seems to disagree only to disagree with Resnick, even though the author takes a stance on Dahmer being a heartless manipulator, which Resnick is, in fact, arguing for. If this section was at all explained (such as the argument at hand and how the author disagrees with it), I would be able to better tell the author’s point, but as it stands it’s absolute nonsense just looking to disagree with the prosecution no less! If I recall, this is about page 175 and feels like the author is trying to sound superior to an expert, while not being a psychology expert, denouncing psychology as a whole, and also purporting this as a book on Jeffrey Dahmer’s psychology.
Now, back to the DSM. The author expresses dislike for the DSM for the same reason he dislikes psychiatrists; because there aren’t “set rules”. Dude, this is psychology, an imperfect, unique-to-each science. Different for everyone who is experiencing it, and everyone who is studying it. Why are you sh*tting on it while writing a book “inside the mind”? If anything is contradictory, it’s you writing this book while acting like you’re providing new insight, while also denouncing those who can provide insight. The author acts like psychology is a charlatan’s job because everyone has different ideas on it, biases, is “contradictory”, but you know what’s funny? Sometimes even gun evidence or witness accounts and other things can be contradictory, but like I said, this author doesn’t seem to take issue with all that.
Also, for someone putting Bible quotes in to bolster certain ideas around the case, good job comparing religion to the DSM, as religion has nothing to do with this besides an attempt to bolster your argument that “ideas” do not equal hard and fast rules, and therefore should be entirely dismissed.
This whole backwards logic on the author’s part can be experienced in the sections discussing Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist who took part in the trial. This section, filled almost entirely with quotes from Dietz himself, shows exactly what good psychiatrists can do in the courtroom: They can apart the methodology and where someone who couldn’t tell what the criminal’s doing differs from someone who can, but sure, author, just dismiss psychology entirely. In honesty, the author acts like psychology is a mere excuse, but never mentions how psychology can also convict someone. Imagine if the prosecution hadn’t talked about how Jeffrey had been pre-planning and thinking ahead with his murders. The insanity plea might have taken root! And, as mentioned previously, the author finds fault in psychologists disagreeing on Dahmer and says it’s a fault of the study entirely, though mentions before and after that Dahmer is a master manipulator and even purposefully told people different things.
In the final notes of the author’s view on this (the only moment where it would have been appropriate to inject his thoughts, by the way), he once again fails to really talk about Dahmer. He spends time comparing Dahmer to other similar killers and mentioning, for what seems like the hundredth time, his sado-sexual urges. When he finally begins to look back, he basically summarizes all the facts he’s spent the page-count rehashing, and then says, “Can one imagine what it must have felt like?” (Page 188). That’s the thing, sir. We aren’t supposed to imagine it, that’s what you should have written about. Then there’s the sudden mention of occult things and Satanism, which was only mentioned a total of one time before now, so briefly I almost forgot it entirely. Then more ego-stroking, mentioning how he’s interviewed many killers (though notably started the book mentioning he didn’t get to interview Dahmer). The entire last chapter is honestly just reminding the reader of what they read the whole time, acting like the author is providing inside into Jeffrey’s mind. I’ve provided more insight just by sitting in my room with my rudimentary understanding than any of these 200 and somewhat pages have. The author’s final assumption is basically, “He was a monster, psychiatrists might disagree with me, but he wasn’t insane.” Okay, so your whole argument isn’t “Why could this have happened, from different perspectives,” but instead is, “I’m going to write a biography, write the verdict as my argument, and act like I provided something new to the understanding of Jeffrey Dahmer.”
Oh, and he again expressed disdain for the “psycho-babble” used in Dahmer’s defense, but also throws in a jab that implies the psychiatrists took tax-payers’ money just to get him better lodgings when convicted. Don’t think about what other elements could have influenced the psychologists being brought in, just sh*t on them, because this is a book inside the mind of Dahmer so of course let us act like psychiatrists are just phonies parading themselves as knowledgeable… reminds me of someone, doesn’t it?

In short, this book is a waste of time and frankly my brain power. It claims in its own blurb that the author “seeks to understand the motivation, the amoral urges, the merciless horror…” but in the end is a pile of word vomit regurgitating every other biography on Dahmer that came before it, relying heavily on other peoples’ works and the author’s interactions with other serial killers, all the while providing nothing of true insight or note besides the author telling his readers, “I think I’m better than psychologists and you’ll fall for that summary hook line and sinker. Time to count my money!”
Thankfully I got this book for free on Amazon Unlimited, though truthfully this book isn’t even worth the mere thought of reading. This book isn’t inside the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer. It’s inside the ego of a writer who blatantly lied to sell books and nothing more.

the author unnecessarily lets his opinion shine through too much, which is completely irrelevant to the story

Not a fan of the writing style. Too conversational, almost like it was a blog. The repetition of asking if we can see JD now followed by 'I can' drove me crazy.
Interesting, fast-paced book though and I liked the use of various other sources throughout

I have attempted to read several of Christopher Berry-Dee's books before, and have given up on all of them. This one was no exception. The book was supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, but most of it consisted of the very opinionated and arrogant author rambling on and on about various things and people that irked him. This would often run into several pages, completely destroying any interest I may once have had in reading this extremely dull and long-winded book. I don't feel as though I knew anything more about Jeffrey Dahmer, other than the author's own very biased opinions of him. This was yet another book by him that ended up in my bin, which was probably the best place for it.

I am not going to give this man another penny of my money. I will remember to avoid his books if I see them in the future. I strongly suggest that you do the same.

I have been interested in crime and those who commit it for many years. Knowing what makes someone tick is fascinating don't you think?

One of the many reasons I enjoyed this book was the Hannibal lector quotes; "bowels in or bowels out?" and "I must confess to you, I am giving very serious thought to eating your wife inspector pazzi." I love Hannibal and have a tattoo based on the silence of the lambs 😊

One of the huge annoyances of this particular book is the author's habit of going off on tangents. Whilst I am aware of him mentioning this habit himself, it didn't make it any less annoying. I can completely understand drawing comparisons between Dahmer and other serial killers, but some of it was entirely irrelevant. The first chapter of the book had very little information on Dahmer or anything really relating to him except for the number of muscles a body has, litres of blood etc.

Then we move onto the relationship between his parents, conception of Jeff and the pregnancy itself. I have so many questions!

The crimes which Jeffrey committed were horrific and I cannot imagine the pain which he caused to so many people. With that being said, I do believe there were signs along the way that were repeatedly ignored.

If we begin by looking at his mother Joyce, a very self absorbed, manipulative woman. During her pregnancy with Jeff, she made no pretense of being happy. She hated being pregnant and how it made her feel. She was on a total of 27 tablets per day including anti depressants, progesterone and growth hormones. It is also said that there would be 'episodes' where Joyce would become rigid and foam at the mouth. When this happened she was then injected with barbiturates. What in the world?! I am fully aware that medical knowledge in the 1980s was not what it is today, but it is blatantly obvious that this concoction of drugs had an effect on developing baby Jeff.

Additionally, Joyce needed constant reassurance and praise, ego stroking if you will. As the family had moved due to Lionel's job, Joyce felt like she wasn't Lionel's soul priority so she decided to take a walk on a winter's night, lie down in the snow and all in a night dress!

It seems pretty clear to me that Joyce had some form of mental health condition and most likely post partum depression. Not only did Jeff have to grow up with a manic and irrational mother, but he also witnessed numerous arguments and physical violence between his parents. It is believed that the violence didn't just stay between the parents as in Joyce's diary she recorded that she patted Jeff on the bottom twice at 9 months old for discipline reasons. How was this never questioned? What on earth could a 9 month old baby have done to deserve that punishment?

Joyce was sectioned in 1970 and filed for divorce from Lionel. In the divorce papers they both cited that the other neglected Jeffrey. After all of this I can only assume that Jeff's mother Joyce had a very negative impact on his upbringing. This leaves me with a few questions;
1) Why did she think that she would be able to cope with a second pregnancy and second child?
2) Why did Lionel agree to have a second child? Especially when he pondered if Joyce's co*cktail of pills had damaged Jeff.
3) Why did Joyce pretend to care when Jeff was murdered in prison but left him when he was alive and needed help?

Although I feel that Joyce had a huge part to play in Jeffrey's toxic behaviour, I feel that his father Lionel, had even more of an impact.

One of the most staggering revelations from Lionel was that he was in fact the one who had taught Jeffrey preservation techniques. Initially when questioned, Lionel lied and said it wasn't him. This immediately set alarm bells ringing for me. Who on earth shows a 10 year old that? Additionally, Lionel also thought that taking Jeff to remove the carcass of a dead animal underneath the house was a good idea! Not only did he bring the remains of said animal into the house, but he recalled Jeff playing with the bones, laughing and saying that they were like 'fiddlesticks'. At this stage, Jeff was around 4 or 5 years old.

With that being said, it was recorded that Jeff had a huge interest in animals, both alive and dead. Now, animals are an interest of many who then don't go on to become a serial killer, but I do feel that if Jeff had been supported and nurtured in the correct way then things may have been different.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Lionel waited until Jeffrey had been incarcerated for 15 murders (2 not accounted for in charges) before he admitted that he had also had disturbing and destructive behaviour related thoughts throughout his life! It begs belief! Furthermore, Jeff had started to consume alcohol and by 14 he was an alcoholic. The school, obviously concerned about Jeff turning up drunk and failing classes, informed Lionel. Most parents I know would have been absolutely livid, but Lionel just decided to have 'a talk' with Jeff, which as a typical teen, he ignored. At this time Lionel claimed that Jeff was already 'too addicted' so it didn't work. I feel that this was a lie to try and cover for the fact that Lionel didn't actually try to help Jeff.

Again, after reading all of the information, I have numerous questions;
1) Why did Lionel not listen to Jeff about his thoughts and feelings considering he saw that Jeff was having disturbing thoughts like he did?
2) How did he ever expect Jeff to fully open up about anything when Lionel stated the fact that Jeff being gay was repugnant?
3) How did he think that introducing a small child to dead animals and teaching him how to preserve them was normal, nevermind a good idea?

Now it's time to look at Jeff himself. A manic mother, an absent father and an inquisitive mind, where did it all go wrong? Like any other baby, Jeff deserved love and to be nurtured but unfortunately that wasn't the case.

After his arrest Jeff stated that as far back as 8 years old he remembered feeling alone, depressed and neglected. To me reading this as a mother, my heart broke. I can't imagine how he felt as a child knowing he wasn't wanted. This was also confirmed by Jeff's prison psychologist. It was also reported that he had unreal expectations of himself and wasn't in touch with reality.

In conclusion, I do feel that Jeff was doomed from conception. The co*cktail of medications and mental health issues of his parents have definitely had an impact, but due to the fact that his brain was cremated with the rest of his body we will never know for sure.

I also believe that Jeff displayed some behaviours which indicate some form of neuro divergence such as autism. My reasoning for this is the fact he was mainly alone, very few friends and struggled with communication. He desperately wanted friends and/or a companion but was unable to maintain relationships. The fact that Jeffrey committed such horrific crimes cannot be blamed on anyone else but him, but I do believe his parents have a lot to answer for.

It's always interesting to explore the question "what makes a serial killer?" Berry-Lee attempts to answer this question by exploring Jeffrey Dahmer's relationship with his parents and his early upbringing.

Early in the book, the author states that he has an abrasive writing style, and he is correct. This book is hard to classify, because while I would normally call it a biography, authors of a biography tend to state the facts and leave it at that. This author makes his opinion known on every detail and does not shy away from the fact that he thinks Dahmer is an unrepentant monster who deserves the death penalty. He also gives off strongly mysoginist vibes as he paints the portrait of Dahmer's mother as the dominant negative influence in Jeffrey's life, leaving little leftover blame for the absent father.

All in all, it was interesting to read, but I would not recommend it and would not pick up another book by the author.

Thank you to Netgalley and Ad Lib Publishing for an advanced readers copy of the book. All opinions are my own.

⭐️⭐️

Teresa's Book Rating Scale
⭐️- absolutely loathed/crossed a line or included a hard limit of mine (cheating, &c.)
⭐️⭐️ - read it and didn't like it.
⭐️⭐️⭐️(don't recommend) - I found it interesting or worth reading at the time, but I wouldn't pass it along to a friend.
⭐️⭐️⭐️ (recommend) - perhaps not a literary masterpiece, but light and enjoyable! You should read it.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ - wonderful, almost perfect but perhaps missing something/containing some element I did not like.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️- fantastic, must read, I would die for this book, bury me with this book.

I gave up, didn't even finish it because of the exhausting mass of archaic opinions rather than an actual analysis of Jeffrey Dahmer. Waste of £8.99

I haven't been rating a book 1* for ages. I was expecting a book about Jeffrey Dahmer,
Not my cup of tea.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine

This is the second book I have bought/read about "The Milwaukee Cannibal" Jeffrey Dahmer.
I intend to read the books My Friend Dahmer, The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer & other books as well.
There is a Netflix series called Monster: The Story of Jeffrey Dahmer that will be available soon.
My Friend Dahmer is accurate film/book about Jeffrey Dahmer as a teenager.
I've already read a book about Jeffrey Dahmer that was gruesome to read written by Jack Rosewood.
Any book about Jeffrey Dahmer will include very graphic descriptions of rape, murder, mutilation of a still living person(s), the mutilation, cannibalisation of their corpses.
Jeffrey Dahmer had a shrine of the decapitated heads/skulls of his victims, he practiced dark magick.
The author inaccurately & incorrectly says that Richard Kuklinski is the "Unabomber" but Richard Kuklinski is known as "The Iceman" Mafia hitman (there is a book, film & documentary about him)
"The Unabomber" was Ted Kaczynski & he was a victim of the MK Ultra brutalizing psychological experiments programming/torture method of the CIA.
Everyone knows this, a quick Google search would tell you so, it should be edited/corrected in the book. No hate towards the author, it's just inaccurate and incorrect.
Jeffrey Dahmer committed 17 murders, but was only convicted for 15 murders which is a bit strange.
After his trial/convictions for at least 15 of his 17 murders, he was in solitary confinement for his own safety due to be intensely hated by other inmates/convicts in the prison.
He was attacked more than once, the inmates/convicts were disgusted by his crimes, dark, cruel sense of humour.
He made his food look like his victims, used ketchup to simulate blood which is a prime example of his dark, sick, cruel sense of humour.
He never felt any empathy, remorse for his victims/premeditated crimes, he was unrepentant, he didn't care at all, he may have believed in his way of thinking, that he didn't do anything wrong.
His crimes, behaviour, sense of humour disgusted, disturbed the inmates/convicts in the prison.
While cleaning toilets he was attacked/murdered by a convicted schizophrenic murderer who bludgeoned, beat up Jeffrey Dahmer, he didn't fight back and defend himself, he was taken to hospital and he died a hour later.
He was cremated, his ashes were shared by his parents Joyce & Lionel Dahmer.
His brother David has never publicly talked about his brother Jeffrey Dahmer, he doesn't want to be associated with him and the horrific, disgusting, disturbing crimes he committed.
He even changed his surname, to further distance himself from any association with him.

For a shy/reserved and mild mannered person, he hid his very dark, sick, perverse & disturbing fantasies from everyone he was friends including his family.
They had no idea until it was too late, they were horrified by the disturbing, disgusting things he did to young men & young boys.
He lacked the social skills required to ever have any meaningful or lasting friendship/relationship.
He had difficulty in relating to other people, he attempted to make friends but he was always considered to be weird, a freak, someone that was a outcast, a loner, that was ridiculed for being weird or different.
On the surface to me he always seemed like a shy, introverted person with social anxiety, but maybe he sometimes pretended to be like that to lure people into a false sense of security to gain their trust as well.
I believe this was one of the reasons, that he felt, isolated, alienated, lonely, frustrated, angry and the best way for him to express the way he thought or felt was his violent, dark, sick fantasies, his premeditated crimes. He spent a lot of time by himself, which enabled him to cultivate his fantasies, what turned him on, to perfect his modus operandi, enact his fantasies in real life, that horrified, disgusted and anguished humanity.
They had no idea of the extent of his depravity, of what he was really capable of, the fact that he acted so normal and ordinary is very disturbing.
The types of sick, very vivid fantasies he had took a lot of time to cultivate over time, until he couldn't take it anymore, just having a fantasy wasn't enough, he wanted to act on his disturbing impulses & sick fantasies.
Some of the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer had their bones ground up & scattered behind the house he was living in at the time, during his murderous rampage, i'm not sure if he did that to all of his victims or only some of them.
So there would be no trace of them left, except tiny, microscopic ground up bone fragments.
Some bone fragments were found, during a forensic/police thorough search of the place where Jeffrey Dahmer was living by himself, after his parents abandoned him at the age of 18.
Over time Jeffrey Dahmer became sloppy, he was comfortable in his position of power over young men and boys, he may have believed that people would never discover his secret, dark double he lived, but I also believe that he became tired of killing & wanted to eventually to be caught.
It's always disturbing to me how matter-of-fact he describes what he did to his victims or why he did it, like what he was talking about it was a ordinary conversation whenever he was interviewed about his horrific, sick & disturbing crimes.
His methodology, reasons for what he did & why he did it, his state of mind, the dark, violent fantasies he had since he was a child will always disturb, disgust & fascinate me.
Not everyone is fit to be a parent or actually good at parenting either.
Jeffrey Dahmer's mother Joyce sounds like she is a controlling narcissist, that has Daddy issues, due to her constant need for reassurance, approval, acceptance, being reassured that she is loved, wanted, needed.
Her alcoholic dad didn't spend time with her, or make it obvious that he loved & cared about her, so as a adult she is needy, emotionally dependant on other people.
She felt lonely, abandoned, ignored, neglected while she was growing up which lead to her becoming needy and always seeking reassurance, which some people would describe as being attention-seeking type of behaviour.
So I can see why Jeffrey might act in a similar way, when he grew up in a unstable family dynamic and neither parent seems to be empathetic, both his parents are wrapped up in their own little worlds, distant, emotionally unavailable.
So it would make sense, that he feels alone, unwanted, abandoned and lonely as a child then as a teenager & adult.
Overwhelming loneliness/being a misunderstood loner were the main aspects that lead him to commit the horrific crimes he committed.
He is similar to Dennis Nilsen he was also a necrophile, that murdered men due to being extremely lonely.
His behaviour is related to being isolated, reserved,withdrawn, shy, lonely, a antisocial loner.
Jeffrey Dahmer started drinking alcohol at 11-12 years old and became a alcoholic by the time he was 14 years old.
Things escalated from there, he became a alcoholic, a predator towards children, young men/young underage boys.
He became a alcoholic at 14 years old he was already feeling severe depression and anxiety as a teenager, when he was 15-16 years old and becoming fascinated/obsessed with death, dissecting roadkill/animals, doing experiments on animals/dissecting them.
He wanted to know what they looked like on the inside, how they worked.
His crimes were due to overwhelming loneliness, being a loner, misunderstood or possibly not accepted by other people for being gay, since his dad wouldn't have accepted him for who he was.
His was predatory towards anyone underage or vulnerable, his crimes were sexually motivated sado-sexual crimes.
The victims were innocent they should be treated with respect and remembered.
He could have been successful, happy but instead he was a self-destructive, self-saboteur, he would rather just accept failure & not wanted to be disappointed due to hating disappointment.
His father was also, shy, bullied/tormented and had the intention/desire to start fires and hurt people that tormented him, so in my opinion both his parents contributed to Jeffrey Dahmer becoming the "Milwaukee Cannibal"
The fact that his father had the intention to start fires, hurt people that hurt/bullied him says a lot about inherited genes, behaviour, nature versus nurture.
If one or both parents have a predilection for violence, then the child is more likely to grow up to become violent themself, especially when they grown up in a unstable/unhappy home environment, so the child spends all their time alone or with their siblings to avoid violence, conflict.
A child would retreat into their own fantasy land, their own private world where they feel safe, so I can understand how overtime, the more a child is spending in their fantasy world in their mind, the more detached from reality they become, until it develops into delusions, mental illness.
I think part of the problem during his childhood, the way he was raised was due to him being alone a lot, especially when his parents were divorced he was abandoned.
Children have the right to live in a safe environment & live peacefully with/without the influence of their parents in a positive or negative way.
I think even if a serial killer wasn't abused, they are still scarred by something that has happened in their life in the past, that has deeply hurt them a wound that can't be healed, a defining moment that they can't forgotten, some type of injustice, they were wronged, f*cked over by someone/something they would want justified revenge for.
It's the reason they feel hatred towards humanity, why they don't feel empathy, why it's easier for them to be a cold-blooded monster.
He was living with his grandma for some time, until they became suspicious and cautious of where he was going, what he was doing while he was living there, eventually they asked him to leave.
Both his parents didn't really have time for him, ignored him most of the time, didn't make a effort as a parent to engage with Jeffrey, ask him how he was, how school was going, simple things like that.
If you suspect something is wrong with your child, why wouldn't you talk to them or ask if they are okay?
Why don't parents seem to do this, they are your child, you are responsible for them, you brought them into the world, you can't just reject, abandon them, treat them like they don't exist, ignore their existence, like some parents do.
He was isolated & spent to much time by himself, which allowed him to develop his imagination, and perverse, sick fantasies that he had and obviously thought about a lot while he was growing up.
Over time he is cultivating his persona, modus operandi, his predatory nature/apex predator instincts to lure, stalk and hunt his prey. Young men/underage boys/boys specifically.
After attempting to go to the college Jeffrey Dahmer dropped out after 3 months, due to his extreme alcoholism, self-sabotage, he then enlisted to be in the US Army, he was stationed in Germany for three years.
However things didn't go well, due to his attitude, behaviour, alcoholism & torture/sexual assault of two soldiers.
One of them is forever scarred/damaged by what he endured, the horrific experience of being tortured/raped by Jeffrey Dahmer.
It's sad that this poor man, suffered & will be forever scarred by what Jeffrey Dahmer did to him.
I think it shows the incompetence of the police at the time Jeffrey Dahmer, was hunting/stalking Milwaukee for potential victims, that they believed him when one of his victims escaped and tried to get help from the police.
It sickens, disgusts & infuriates me, how incompetent, dismissive, wilfully ignorant the police were.
Sadly the victim did not survive, what Jeffrey Dahmer did to them.
If the Police officers even bothered to find out the identity or age of Konerak Sinthasomphone, or looked at the polaroid photos on his wall, looked in his bedroom, they would have seen evidence of hs previous victims.
They would have known that Konerak was only 14 years old and saw the decomposing corpse of one of his victims laying on the floor of his bedroom!
They didn't want to get involved due to Jeffrey Dahmer being gay though which is ridiculous, stupid, insulting to his victims, and absolutely disgusting.
This section of the book, or in any film or series about Jeffrey Dahmer always infuriates me, it's really pisses me off, I can't even imagine what the family members of the victims felt/still feel now about this now.
None of the victims deserved to be drugged with sleeping pills, raped, mutilated, butchered, cannibalized, for any part of them to be preserved in formaldehyde, kept as a macabre trophy on his shrine of death.
All victims of crimes that are still alive & a survivor or including the victims that were horrifically tortured, raped, murdered should be remembered and respected.
It's creepy to me that Jeffrey Dahmer, after being released from prison/having psychological assessments/tests done that he murdered his second victim 24 year Steven Tuomi.
I think it shows the incompetence of the police at the time Jeffrey Dahmer, was hunting/stalking Milwaukee for potential victims, that they believed him when one of his victims escaped and tried to get help from the police.
It sickens, disgusts & infuriates me, how incompetent, dismissive, wilfully ignorant the Milwaukee police were at the time Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes occurred.
Sadly the victim did not survive what Jeffrey Dahmer did to them, none of his victims survived,but one potential victim did escape.
If the Police officers even bothered to find out the identity or age of Konerak Sinthasomphone, or looked at the polaroid photos on his wall, looked in his bedroom, they would have seen evidence of hs previous victims.
They would have known that Konerak was only 14 years old and saw the decomposing corpse of one of his victims laying on the floor of his bedroom!
They didn't want to get involved due to Jeffrey Dahmer being gay though which is ridiculous, stupid, insulting to his victims, and absolutely disgusting. Not all of his victims were gay, but some of his victims were underage.
This section of the book, or in any film or series about Jeffrey Dahmer always infuriates me, it's really pisses me off, I can't even imagine what the family members of the victims felt/still feel now about this now. I can't even imagine, the pain, anger, disgust or feeling of injustice the family members or friends of the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer must of felt at the time, or still feel now.
I think the more you try to prevent a sexual predator, sexual sad*st, psychopath from committing crimes, engaging in their fantasies, by conditioning their behaviour, the more they will want to engage in their sick fantasies, predatory, violent sexual behaviour/impulses.
Any psychological assessment, therapy or conditioning of Jeffrey Dahmer's mind did nothing to improve his state of mind, or to stop him from thinking about very dark & disturbing things that he wanted to do.
Even if he wasn't turned on by his fantasies, or what he did to his 17 victims, I think that it was sexually satisfying for him to totally control, dominate, own/possess his victim, consume a part of them so they would be with him forever.
He liked the whole process of, stalking, prowling for his potential victims, drugging, incapacitating them, so they have no control, they can't resist, run away or ever leave.
His crimes, were sexually motivated, they were also motivated by Jeffrey Dahmer feeling extreme loneliness, isolation, he wanted to have friends, companionship, he wanted to be loved.
He liked the process of the rape, butchering/mutilating his victims corpses, documenting it in polaroid photographs (the police found these when they were investigating his apartment)
I think if Jeffrey Dahmer grew up in a normal, stable household, his parents paid attention to him, loved him and spent time with him he, he would still grow up to be who he became, a predatory, sexually motivated, necrophile, cannibal & serial killer.
A lot of women read true crime, to learn what red flags in the behaviour of a man or woman to look out for, pay attention to especially when something feels off about them, something doesn't seem right, or their behaviour, attitude, demeanor doesn't match up with what they say, it's a red flag!
Pay attention to the red flags, the things people don't say, if their intentions seem questionable, or unknown, if they have a violent, unpredictable anger, a darkside that you don't like, if you don't feel comfortable around them, then trust your intuition, and avoid them or cut them out of your life, because you never know they could literally be a serial killer.
A lot of people read true crime to learn what red flags to pay attention to in a the behaviour of men or women. Always trust your intuition, instincts.
I appreciate anyone that reads/likes my book reviews. I always give my honest/authentic opinion :)
Unfortunately I had to edit my review because it was too long, but I hope people still read my book review.