Why Was Jack the Ripper Never Caught Essay

Why Was Jack the Ripper Never Caught Essay.






Pages and pages were given over to reporting on the inquests into the deaths of the victims; local residents were interviewed at length; police officers were followed, and sometimes even bribed, as reporters endeavoured to secure that all too elusive exclusive that might help sell more newspapers. The press or media highly criticized the police and these criticisms were published in the newspaper. Most of the public also agreed with the press and they really want jack the ripper to be dead. This puts the police under pressure and queen victoria was furious about this.

Why Was Jack the Ripper Never Caught Essay

The Case for the Defence Essay

The Case for the Defence Essay.

The story begins in the Central Criminal Court in London at the trial of Mr Adams, who is accused with what was dubbed the “Peckham Murder”; the murder of Mrs. Parkers who was battered to death in Northwood Street. Adams was accused of the murder when four witnesses saw him or someone with his appearance coming out of Mrs. Parker’s house holding a hammer on the day that she was murdered. The case is muddied by the fact that while Adams is standing in the dock there is another Adams, his identical twin sitting at the back of the court with his wife.

The witnesses are all called to give their testimony and the final witness, Mrs. Salmon, who is also the prime character in the story, identifies the man in the dock as the murderer. However when Mrs. Salmon has the identical twin pointed out to her she becomes very confused.

This confusion means that it is impossible to say which of the twins was the murderer and the accused Adams is acquitted because of lack of evidence.

And here Graham Greene introduces the concept of the Divine Vengeance in the story. Divine vengeance is the main essence of the uncanny classic, “The Case for the Defence”. Initially, in the story, Greene presents forth that at least one of the Adams are certainly the murderers. This can be understood clearly by the number of evidences (witnesses), and the manner of writing of Greene. The scene yet plays loopholes and ultimately both the Adams escape without any of them held guilty. This is certainly against the “DIVINE JUSTICE”. After the twins escape human justice, one of them ends up being smashed badly by a big bus.

It is obvious that when things get beyond the hands of us mortals, the spiritual Lord has to do the required justice. Thus it surely puts to the reader’s thinking that the god has done the justice. But still the reader remains confused as the other people in the story whether the person who died was the real criminal or not? In this way Graham Greene uses his skills to make the reader think about the case and the murderer. The story is told through a narrator who does not participate in the plot but refers to the events of the story in the third person.

This means that the reader is left to read between the lines of what the narrator is saying to work out what really happened and also gives a good description of the characters, like Mrs. Salmon who is described as “the ideal witness, with her slight Scotch accent and her expression of honesty, care and kindness” showing the reader that her witness was reliable especially as the accused is described as “a heavy stout man with bulging bloodshot eyes”, not a character she was likely to have mistaken as someone else. Thus, in this way Graham Greene describes the characters really very well, making the story even better.

This short story is a good tense read and Graham Greene keeps the tension going right up to the end of the story as he finishes it with the words ”But if you were Mrs. Salmon, could you sleep at night?” By writing this the author is showing the reader that there is probably still a murderer on the loose and that Mrs. Salmon may be in great danger. This is a quick and easy short story to read and one that makes an ideal introduction to anyone who had not experienced the works of the wonderful writer Graham Greene.

The Case for the Defence Essay

Analysis of Ted Bundy Serial Killer Essay

Analysis of Ted Bundy Serial Killer Essay.

This paper will be an analysis of Theodore Robert Bundy a famous serial murderer who killed over a span of 4 years in the 70’s. This paper will discuss some of the developmental and situational factors that might have contributed to his reign of terror. It will also discuss the early years of his life as well as touch base on some of his crimes.


Theodore Robert Bundy was born on November 24, 1946 to Eleanor Louise Cowell, he was born at the Elizabeth Lund Home for unwed mothers.

He was conceived out of wedlock , his father was unknown but it was listed on his birth certificate it was a sailor by the name of Jack Worthington. Who his mother supposedly had a fling with but that could never be proven(Sullivan, 2009).

Since Bundy was born out of wedlock and his mother did not want to be the talk of the town, she led everyone to believe that Ted was her brother and her parents were his parents and she lived this way for 4 years in Burlington Vermont with her parents until she decided to leave town and take Ted with her.

After about 4 years Ted and his mother moved out of Burlington Vermont and they settled in Tacoma Washington where his mother legally changed his last name to Nelson, for reasons which is still not clear. But within a year Louise Cowell met a young man by the name of Johnny Culpepper Bundy and they were married, and that’s when Ted’s last name was changed again for good to Bundy(Sullivan, 2009).

Bundy grew up in Tacoma Washington and he graduated from Woodrow Wilson Highschool. He was not very popular, kept pretty much to himself. He was quoted as saying he really did not know how to interact in a group. He would mimic people’s actions and responses in order to appear in a social setting(Aynesworth, 2000).

It is not known how early in life Ted Bundy began killing, but there was an early sign of abnormalities in his personality. As a young child his own family saw a difference in his behavior. One minute he was fine and then the next he would morph into this whole other person. His aunt recounted and incident when she had awoken from a nap her nephew Ted was standing over her with many knives around her body and he stood there with a complacent look on his face (Sullivan, 2009).

Ted would go on to graduate from highschool and attend college at Washington State, where he would meet the woman that is rumored to be the cause of his killing rampage, her name is Stephanie Brooks. They dated for about a year, but as their relationship progressed Ted’s Personality and sexual inadequacies got in the way of their relationship blossoming (Aynesworth, 2000).

It was not long after his break up with Stephanie Brooks that young women were starting to disappear from campuses around Washington State. When some of the bodies were found they were brutally beaten about the head, strangled, raped and torchered. Some were missing their heads completely. Bundy’s victims ranged from the age of 18 to 24, they all had dark hair and a part down the middle(Sullivan, 2009). Ted’ s reign of terror lasted over a four year period from 1974 to 1978, he killed over a span of six states (Washington, Utah, Colorado, Florida, Idaho and Oregon). He had a total of 36 victims, there was speculation there might have been more and Ted himself had hinted there was, but that was never proven (Sullivan, 2009).

When Ted was caught people were labeling him as a psychopath. The definition of a psychopath is a person who is impulsive, grandiose, callous and has not empathy what so ever, and that definition fir Ted perfectly. He was very grandiose, whe he decided to defend himself at trial instead of having a lawyer. He never showed empathy for his victims , even when he was denying his part in their deaths, and his callousness toward his victims, was proven when the bodies were found they were so brutally murdered (Harenski, 2010)

Now this paper will touch base on some of the situational factors that may have played a part in him becoming the man he was, and what signs were evident in his early years that probably could have prevented his outcome.


Some situational factors that might have contributed to ted Bundy disturbing behavior, was his obsession with pornography and his upbringing with his grandfather in his early years. His grandfather Sam Cowell was known to be a drunk and violent and also had a obsession with pornography (Sullivan, 2009).

Ted at a very young age was not really given much affection. His mother was not the comforting type. He was not able to develop that bond that a child has with a parent because a good part of his life he thought his mother was his sister, so that’s the way he interacted with her (Sullivan, 2009).

According to the attachment theory, when a child is born they are suppose form attachments with their parents. They depend on their parents for love and affection they also depend on them to teach them how to love and feel empathy for others, but if a child never receives that affection, they will have a difficult time interacting with others outside their comfort zone (pearce, 2010).

Bundy had a negative attachment representation which could have contributed to his personality defecencies, he mostly likely had what is called a maladaptive perception of others (pearce, 2010). Research has shown that a child who has negative attachment representation they develop certain dynamics in their personality which may include lack of empathy, habitual mistrust, superficial charm and avoidance of engagement or intimacy. They can also be controlling, demanding very manipulative, charming and deceitful. All the characteristics that have been associated with Ted Bundy, he said to be very charming, manipulative and he lacked empathy for his crimes (pearce, 2010).

Developmental Factors

Some developmental factors that probably contributed to Ted Bundy’s personality disorder, he witnessed his grandfather be violent and abusive towards the women in the household, but he always considered his grandfather to be and up standing individual, he does not remember his grandfather in that manner, but everyone else does. Also his grandfather who was known to have an obsession with pornography, which is a problem Ted claimed is part of his reasons for doing the things he did. (Aynesworth, 2000) Ted growing up was left to his own devices his mother was not much of a mother figure, like I said earlier he had detachment from his parents, so his development was compromised he really was not shown how to be, he was not told that if you do something wrong there is consequences for your actions, as a child he shoplifted and was suspected of robberies in his area he was questioned but he was never charged.(Sullivan, 2009)

Even though Bundy’s mother was not very active in his life, his stepfather Johnny Bundy had different form of parenting style, he was more of a authoritarian, he demanded respect and he physically punished Ted if he felt he was being disrespected. Authoritarian parents tend to be very strict and and children are expected to be obedient and they are not to question their parents authority, and on occasion Johnny and Ted had verbal arguments that became physical with Johnny hitting Ted, and his mother usually was the mediator.(Sullivan, 2009) The problem with this form of authoritarian way of parenting is the child does not get a chance to express oneself, so he or she has all this latent aggression that is waiting to be let loose, so for Bundy he was never allowed to express his anger freely in order to let some of that aggression go.(Bartol, 2008)

Ted Bundy at a very young age could have been diagnosed with a conduct disorder, because he was stealing at a young age, and he was just being a juvenile delinquent, but he was not treated for this so that also could have been a contributing factor, because at an early age he was exhibiting antisocial behavior.(Bartol, 2008)

He was going against societies norms at an early age, and he was exhibiting very disturbing behavior at the of 3 which should have been treated but it was ignored, a main issue with that might have been the era he was in , being born in the 40’s people were not as knowledgeable about disorders or tolerable if someone was diagnosed with one.


In conclusion Ted Bundy was one of the worst serial killers of our time, he was brutal in his killings, and he took the lives of over 36 women that we know of, he lived his life in the spot light he had many friends, people considered him charming and intelligent, he was a big figure in politics in the 70’s. He graduated with a degree in Psychology and went on to study law, but never finished. The ironic thing is he acquired a degree in psychology and he himself had psychological problems. (Aynesworth, 2000)

He was a psychopath, he had no remorse no sympathy for his victims, he never referred to his victims as if they were people, in his interviews with Aynesworth and Hugh, he never referred to himself as the killer he always talked about the crime as if he was an outsider. Up until his execution is when he eventually started to acknowledge his crimes, he finally started to admit and confess to his transgressions, he even tried to use the knowledge he had of where the bodies were buried of the victims the police never found, but to his surprise the families of the victims wanted him to be executed more than they wanted to find their loved ones. (Aynesworth, 2000)


Aynesworth, S. G. (2000). Ted Bundy: Conversations with a Killer. Texas: Author Link Press. Bartol, Curt R., A. M. (2008). Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Harenski, Carla i, K. A. (2010). Aberrant Neural Processing of Moral Violations in Criminal Psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 863-874. M., S. K. (2009). The Bundy murders: A comprehensive history. North Carolina: Mcfarland & Company Inc. Pearce, C. (2010). An integration of theory, science and
reflective clinical practice in the care and management of attachment-disordered children: A Triple approach. Educational & Child Psychology , 73-86.

Analysis of Ted Bundy Serial Killer Essay

The Examination of a Teen Killer Essay

The Examination of a Teen Killer Essay. Every Year there is a reported deathly school shooting around the world. Every year it is the same story about how a frustrated teen takes out his anger on the fellow students at school. In the next upcoming paragraphs I will digress on The Killer at Thurston High’s actions through Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology. Kip Kinkel had psychological problems at a young age. His family went to live in Spain for a year; this is where the problems began. Kip was only in the first grade and he was just learning English and since he was able to speak just in English, he would have difficulties understanding his Spanish teacher.

The Examination of a Teen Killer Essay

Kip’s frustration came from his past language experiences, and also the never-ending weight on him of living up to the Kinkel name. It was way too much for a preteen like Kip to be involved with. He had the all-American: “perfect family”, if you will, but in his mind he did not feel welcomed.

Kip thought of himself as the imperfect son, his sister on the other hand was athletic, smart, and well known by almost everyone in their community.

The Kinkel parents were highly respected because of their field of a teaching career. This all left Kip down and depressed during most periods of his life. On May 21, Kinkel had been suspended for bringing a firearm to school the previous day, the suspension day came and Kip reacted by driving his father’s car to school. The 15 year old was covered by a trench coat with a 9-mm Glock and a 22-calibur pistol hidden underneath. Kip Kinkel opened fire in the cafeteria of Thurston High School in Springfield Oregon, killing two students and injuring as many as 20 others. The explanations of his actions are indescribable. From a sociologist stand point, how Kip reacted towards weapons would be a major factor to keep in mind. In this case Kip resolved many of his solutions by either firing guns that he’d gotten from his father, or by detonating home-made explosives. This shows how Kip Kinkel deals with his emotions on the inside.

After the crisis at Thurston High school, the sheriff’s deputies went to the Kinkel residence. There they found loud music playing in the main living room and the rotten smell of decaying bodies. During the confession tape of Kip Kinkel, he said that he loved his parents dearly, and that he “had to do it”. The deputies found the body of William P. Kinkel, 59 covered by a sheet in the first floor bathroom. Kip’s mother Faith M. Kinkel, 57 was found later in the garage also covered by a white sheet. An anthropologist could only describe the purpose of the blaring music being played. Kip grew up listening to a lot of violent music, watching many death related movies, and also just becoming inflicted by the social media around him. Kip Kinkel felt that he had to do what he did in order to achieve bliss.

These anthropological factors had a big influence on all of the actions that Kip pursued. In my opinion, this entire turn of deathly events could only be controlled through Kip Kinkel’s personal and psychological mind. As it was stated before, Kip grew up feeling that he was unwelcome and always alone in his life. This made him very frustrated and upset with himself, thus resulting in his aggressive solutions, (firearms and explosives). So if Kip grew up believing that he was a good kid, and that he could actually achieve other things that other people could do, he wouldn’t have been the Killer at Thurston High.

In conclusion, the fact that Kipland Kinkel was raised in a different country and held back a grade made him a frustrated child right from the start. He was also an all American kid, who was raised around heavy firearms and this impacted his decisions to express his emotions violently. The final point that describes Kip’s actions is how he always listened to aggressive and shallow music, which resulted in him being more deep and dark, and also made him feel like he needed to do the things he did in order to move on. So the story of Kipland Kinkel is an older one, but keep in mind that something like this could happen anywhere!

The Examination of a Teen Killer Essay

Serial Podcast Essay

Serial Podcast Essay.

The Serial is a suspenseful audio storytelling podcast that explores different and dramatic scenarios for each of their episodes. Investigator and journalist, Sarah Koenig, hosted the podcast and she presents her story in a form of reporter, in which she shares the story of a murder that occurred in Baltimore, Maryland. This critique will review the very first episode of The Serial Podcast and the quality of Sarah Koenig’s report from the story of the murder, to the interviews she shared with her witnesses.

In the first episode entitled, The Alibi investigates the story of a high school student named Adnan Syed, who may not or have been falsely convicted of a crime he committed in 1999. His girlfriend during the time named Hae Ming Lee, was murdered and found dead by park in Northern Baltimore. She was confirmed missing after school one day and in six weeks prior to the disappearance, the Baltimore police department arrested her boyfriend, Adnan Syed, for the crime.

Even though Adnan kept his innocence throughout the investigation, he was still convicted and the court sentenced him to life in prison. Sarah Koenig’s (the reporter) purpose in this podcast was to investigate and gain more detail for the killing of Hae Ming Lee. She questions numerous of high school students, one being her own nephew, who attended and who were close friends to Adnan. The main questions she tends to ask are, “Where were you on the day Hae Ming went missing?” and “Do you remember seeing Adnan on that day?” These repetitive, but key, questions where asked towards the students she interviewed during the podcast. However, before the questioning of the crime, Koenig tells us a brief summary of the story and background information of both Adnan and Hae Ming. She goes in great detail describing who they were in high school to help us, the listeners, place an image towards the two in the story.

During the time she’s telling the listeners information about the two main students in the podcast, she also tells information about the other interviewed students as well. This paragraph contains my evaluation prior towards my last paragraph, which described my experience listening to the podcast. In the previous paragraph, I write regarding Koenig’s approach towards the students of the high school and the information she provides about each of them. Personally, I believe this was an important, yet appreciable method Koenig took because it helped me (the listener) understand more about the story. To me, I felt when Koenig provided the background information of each student, including to the two main students in the case, it helped me understand the personalities of them and the actions they would partake in.

Also, I consider that the questions that Koenig delivers are very significant towards my experience with podcasting. The reason being, is that the questions kept me intrigued throughout the podcast and the more questions that Koenig carried, the closer she was towards solving the crime, which me, as a listener to a mystery genre podcast, found it exciting as it progressed towards the end. Overall, I found that the podcast was highly entertaining and enjoyable. As the story grows deeper, my level of interest increases. Because of the production, quality, and storyline of the first episode, I personally would continue listening to the other episodes that are created.

Serial Podcast Essay

Norman Bates: Two Lives Within A Soul Essay

Norman Bates: Two Lives Within A Soul Essay.

Sigmund Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory of Personality Development states that there is a structural model of the psyche, which splits the human identity into three instances of Ego, Superego, and ID. In Psychoanalytic Stage of Development, there are five stages: Oral, Anal, Phallic, Latency, and Genital. Even though Sigmund Freud never was writing about the movie _Psycho_, theories of Freud, have a great connection with the personality of Norman Bates. According to Oedipus complex, by Sigmund Freud, it introduced the term for a child’s libidinal attachment to the opposite sex parent, while experiencing jealousy and dislike of the same sex parent, as an expression of infantile sexuality.

The character Norman Bates, in the movie _Psycho_, showed many signs of having an Oedipus complex when he murdered his mother and her lover.

In the relationship between Norman Bates and his mother, Bates’s mother ruled Norman’s life and controlled his actions. She can be perceived as a symbolic representation of the super-ego.

Eventually, this led Norman to become the killer. Moreover, matricide is the most unbearable guilt, which is the reason of his split personalities. Norman Bates has the want to keep the illusion of his mother being alive and sacrifices his other half to her to erase the crime at least in his mind. The theories of Freud, have been found greatly appeal in connection with the analysis on how Norman Bates struggles to complete successfully the task confronted in the Phallic Stage of Super Ego. Freud’s theory can be demonstrated through Norman Bates in the movie _Psycho_ by the relationship between him and his mother, the jealousy over his mother and the want to keep the illusion of his mother being alive.

The storyline of this film involves a young woman named Marion Crane, who steals $ 40,000 from her boss in order to be able to start a new life with her lover Sam. On the way, she drives to her lover, a sudden rain leads her to check into the Bates Motel. A path between a motel and a house which symbolizes a path between the normal and the insane, and stairs lead to madness. She stays at the “Bates Motel”, which is run by Norman Bates and his mother, whom the audience knows through the movie only as a shadow on a window and her conversations with her son. Norman seems to be interested in the young woman. He offers her some sandwiches, milk for dinner and they have a talk in his parlor.

Norman Bates in _Psycho_ is very gentleman-like, even a little shy. However, who can imagine that a handsome young man turns into a creepy murderer. The essential reason leads to his insane is his attachment to his mother. Freud’s theories that can be applied on Norman Bates which is “Oedipus complex”. As Norman’s case, his Oedipus complex starts from the relationship between Norman Bates and his mother, Bates lives under the monarchy of his dominant mother, which forms his weakness in personality. His mother ruled Norman’s life and controlled his actions. Norman’s father died when he was 5 years old. For 27 years, he lives together with his mom. According to Dr. Simon, the Psychiatrist in the movie, he says: “His mother was a clinging, demanding woman… and for years the two of them lived as if there was no one else in the world” (Psycho).

Because of the domineering personally of his mother, Norman probably never socializes with other people. In The Oedipus Complex by Sigmund Freud, he writes: “In my experience, which is already extensive, the chief part in the metal lives of all the children who later become psychoneurotics is played by their parents” (The Oedipus 918). Mothers are often seen as encouraging the Oedipus complex through possessive behavior toward sons. In the conversation with Marion Crane, Norman tells her: “A boy’s best friend is his mother” (Psycho). By the way that Norman talks about his mother to Marion, the conclusion that can be come up with is Norman’s mother was controlling and domineering. The only woman Norman loves is his mother. As Norman grew up, he never had the chance to explore his sexual desires with other people.

Norman’s behavior can be further analyzed by using Freud’s theory of Infantile Sexuality. In his theory of Infantile Sexuality, Freud explains that a child has sexual instincts. Sigmund Freud’s theory describes the ideas and emotions which exist within the unconscious mind of children concerning their desire to possess their mothers sexually and eliminate the threat of their fathers who they competed with for the attention of their mothers. Norman’s problem is he is stuck in the Phallic Stage. The Phallic Stage is the third stage of child development, occurring between the year of 3 and 6. Between this time, Norman must have been abandoned by his mother.

Her lover must have been envied by Norman because all he wants is his mother’s love and attention. He felt that the other man was a threat to the relationship Norman and his mother had. After feeling abandoned by his mother, Norman’s Oedipus complex forced him to have a fight with his mother’s lover, which eventually made him to murder the two of them after finding them in bed together . For Freud, most repressed memories relate to sexuality. However, the killings don’t stop with the mother and her partner. Norman continues to kill women who come to the motel that he finds attractive.

Norman engages in a discussion with Marion in the parlor where he reveals a desire to escape from his mother, his private trap, but he cannot gain the will to do so. Norman was trapped with his mother and developed an abnormal relationship with her. He explained to Marion his loyalty to his mother, and he is a best boy that his mother can have. At this stage, Marion retires to her room and decides to return to her old life. In the parlor, Norman removes a painting to reveal a spy-hole, which shows that Normal develops sexual feelings towards Marion. When the mother notices that Norman is very interested in the young woman, she starts swearing and tries to dissuade her son from contacting with her. He even holds conversations with himself thinking he is speaking to his mother. When Marion goes to the bathroom at night and starts to take a shower, she gets murdered by the mother. His Oedipus complex, the desire for his mother, makes him think that his mother also desires him. And so this jealousy is the reason that he, a mother, becomes the killer.

After the murder of Marion, Norman disposes her in the swamp next to the house. Marion’s employer does not notify the police, but hires a private detective named Milton Arbogast instead. He finds the Bates Motel and wants to speak with Norman’s mother because of suspicious contradictions. The detective turns to Norman to replace Marion as its main focus in its subjective role. When trying to get in contact with Bates mother, he is murdered. After a few days, Sam and Marion’s sister start to search for the detective. Sam distracts Norman as Lila quietly walks up to the house to talk to Norman’s mother. In the search, she finds Bates’s mother has a large bedroom with fine furniture, mirrors, statuary, a closet which has clothes hung in there, a mattress with a deep curved. All the furniture is marvelous in place.

His mother’s bedroom looks the same as it did 27 years ago. He creates his mother’s room to be timeless because he loves his mother so much, and the guilt of killing possesses him, which leads him to have a desire to keep the illusion of his mother being alive. Besides that, his own room contains old toys, dolls, stuffed animals, which is a room of the 5 or 6 year-old boy. As Lila explores his childish bedroom, she discovers a gramophone recording of Beethoven’s Eroica Symphony. The title itself means Heroic. Children need hero. Norman’s personal growth can be linked with the Oedipus complex. During the development of the Oedipus complex, the child develops a strong sense and powerful urges for sexual possession of the opposite sex parent. The boy identifies with his father and the father becomes his role model. In Norman’s case, the absence of his father has resulted in an unresolved Oedipus complex which results in a weak Superego.

Finally, she finds in the fruit cellar Normans mother’s dead body which has been removed from its grave and preserved. At the end of the film, Dr. Simon, the Psychiatrist, reveals the cruel truth, Norman’s mother has been dead for ten years, and Norman has a split personalities, as he always plays both his own role and the role of the mother. The Psychiatrist explains: “When reality came too close, when danger or desire threatened that illusion, he dressed up, even to a cheap wig he bought. He would walk around the house, sit in her chair, speak in her voice. He was never all Norman, but he was often only Mother” (Psycho).

The feelings of guilt after the killing overwhelmed Norman so he tries to erase the truth from his mind to bring back his mother which could be interpreted with Freud’s theory of repression. Freud used the term to describe the way emotionally painful events could be blocked out of conscious awareness. For that he stole her body and used his knowledge of the taxidermy, which he had acquired through the stuffing of birds to preserve the body of his mother. He could bring her back only psychically and not mentally so he splits half of his mind, and begins to think for his mum, speaks with her voice and wears her clothes, a wig. Norman succeeded to convince himself entirely that his mother was still alive.

In the movie _Psycho_ by Alfred Hitchcock, he used psychological elements to create horror factor. And the movie is the interpretation of Freud’s The Oedipus Complex. Norman Bates turns into a psycho because of the love and desire that Norman has for his mother, the jealousy over his mother and the want to keep the illusion of his mother being alive. In the end, Norman develops a split-personality in which he struggles between himself and his imagined mother. He is entrapped by his suffocating past and is therefore taken over by his own vision of his mother. He can never be Norman again.

Norman Bates: Two Lives Within A Soul Essay

“Minority Report” by Philip K Dick: Can we trust? Essay

“Minority Report” by Philip K Dick: Can we trust? Essay.

In some point of life, everybody has been faced with the question whether to trust or not to trust. What is trust? Trust is defined by Webster as a firm reliance on integrity, ability, or character in someone or something. Throughout the book, by Philip Dick, and the movie, “Minority Report”, trust is a key element that plays a major role. In comparing the book to the movie, trust in technology, trust in people, and trust in fate are a few aspects that show that trust is only a word with no meaning until it is supported by truth.

Trust in technology is portrayed both negatively and positively in both the book and the movie. People often debate over the pros and cons of technology. A number of people believe that technology can only do harm to society because of the uncertainty of it’s ability, while many others strongly defend technology because it has made their life more enriching. The pre-crime system in the movie showed that murder has not happened for a very long time.

The system has done a commendable job in keeping the murder rates down, almost obsolete. That is the positive attribute to the system, but there are also negative effects. In the movie, Anderson trusted in the pre-crime system; a system in which futuristic crimes are predicted and stopped before it actually occurs.

The heart of this system is the three procogs, which are the ones that predict the future murders. With the future prediction of the precogs, the pre-crime police arrests and “halos” the pre-determined murderer. How much trust can be entrusted in the precogs? According to the movie, Agatha was the dominant precog and without her, the other two precog could not produce a vision. The precogs were not supposed to be able to feel or be able to interact with the living world. Agatha proved that fact to be wrong.

She interacted with Anderson and produced visions that she wanted him to see. This shows the system to be flawed and not entirely trustworthy. The precogs were also human beings, even though they were not portrayed to be. They, too, can make mistakes and disregarding this fact, makes society vulnerable to upcoming turmoil. For society to place their entire trust in the precogs is a mere act of ignorance on their part. Could they really trust three “special” human beings to determine their fate? The precogs were depicted as a part of technology not human beings.

Another aspect to the trust in technology is the minority report. Precogs could have a minority report, which is another possible outcome for the destined murderer. How often or how accurate are these reports? Can too much trust be placed on the precogs? Anderson was the only one out of the hundreds who were convicted but was able to question the precog if there was a minority report. The system never reveals how many minority reports actually occur or it never really takes it into consideration.

In the movie, the minority report is hidden from Anderton and the whole society. The hundreds of others could have had a minority report without knowing it. If people knew about the minority report the once reliable system would be destroyed. Therefore, trust in this system already showed a flaw. The most significant component that proves trust in technology is inadequate happens at the end of the movie. Pre-crime was diminished and the convicted were released. Too much dependence and comfort with technology overshadows the hidden flaws and exploitations.

In the book, trust in technology was similar. The pre-crime system also depended on three precogs to predict the future. The difference from the movie was that all three precogs were equal; one didn’t prevail over the other. The technology was not as high tech as the movie. Instead of balls rolling out containing all the visions, just a mere sheet of paper came out. Each precog produced their own vision and it was sent to three different papers. If two visions were similar then it was the majority report and that was used to determine the crime, but the other vision that was not similar was the minority report that was disregarded. The dependence of the visions still stands as the questionable entity of the whole system. Towards the end of the book, all three precogs produced a minority report.

Their visions did not match each other. The last vision produced was considered the most accurate and was used by the pre-crime system. This vision showed that the military was apt to destroy the pre-crime system. Comparing this to the movie, the vision in the movie showed that the creator of the system committed murder himself and used the system to cover it up. Anderton used the vision to stop the injustice created by his mentor and got rid of the pre-crime system. On the other hand, in the book, Anderton commits murder by killing Landen to keep the pre-crime system existing. The system therefore is still functioning, but it is corrupt. Trust in the system is no longer trustworthy. The pre-crime system prevails by flaws, deceit, and injustice. How accurate and how dependable would the system be?Trust in people is another element. In the movie for example, we can see that Anderton trusted his mentor. Every human being have friends and family members whom we rely on.

Whenever we get depress we always run to somehow for comfort, in our mind thinking that they are someone who we can really trust, it’s just natural. In the movie, Anderton trusted his mentor. His mentor was not just his boss, but to Anderton he’s someone whom he can always talk to. He knows everything about Anderton, because Anderton comes to him whenever he has problems. For instance, Anderton’s depression over his son or when Anderton found out that he was going to kill someone, his mentor was the one whom he contacts seeking for helps first. He did not even question his faith in this person until the very end when his wife notice him of it, where he finds out that the one who is behind all the troubles was his mentor, which makes the movie more interesting because of the relationship between him and his mentor. It causes us to feels a little pity for Anderton because of the fact that he was betrayed by what we could say, his best friend.

In the book however, Anderton did not have a mentor. His wife seemingly takes on the role of his mentor. Differently however, instead of trusting as he did for his mentor in the movie, Anderton was suspicious of his wife early on in the story. He thought that his wife took some part in framing him. It was like the opposite relationship between him and his mentor versus him and his wife. First, he trusted his mentor but he was left with only betrayal at the end. With his wife, however, he was suspicious of her at first but then later finds out that she has been on his side all along. Seemingly, in movies and story the villain is like someone whom the character knows and trusts.

Trust in fate, a power thought to control all events and impossible to resist a person’s destiny, is the most significant factor in the book and movie. Fate has an overwhelming power over the mind. This thing called fate is able to control a person and that person has no ability to change it. It is a power that settles ahead of time how things happen. Fate is unavoidable no matter what anyone tries, no matter what anyone does, no matter what anyone believes they have accomplished, they have no control over fate. In the book and movie, fate was taken out of the natural cycle of life. People thought they could control one’s fate by determining ahead of time their actions.

The pre-crime system thought that they could prevent world destruction by predicting who the murderers were. They never believed nor allowed the natural essence of choice to be given. Everybody has a choice that determines his or her fate. Anderson figures this out by the help of Agatha. She tells him that he still has a choice, which totally destroys the whole pre-crime system. He makes his choice not to shoot the guy that supposedly killed his son, which gives him another alternative to live. His mentor also had a fate, which he chose. At the end he had a choice to shoot Anderson to prove that the pre-crime system prevails and get hallowed for it, but he chose his own fate and killed himself. There would be no future if everything could be predicted. The future would seize to exist.

The true meaning of trust can only be found when individuals willingly enter a state of mind that will allow trust to mature. Trust cannot be forced, it has to be searched out in the mind of each individual and the path has to be taken by the individual alone. Someone who has been there can help with the journey but it is still a journey that must be taken alone. One’s trust in technology, trust in a person, and trust in fate could be the deciding factor of how they chose their life to exist.

Works Cited

Dick, Phillip K. The Minority Report. 1956.

The Minority Report. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Perf. Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton, Perter Stormare, and Max Von Sydow. 20th Century Fox, 2002.


“Vendetta” and “The Schoolteachers Guest” Essay

“Vendetta” and “The Schoolteachers Guest” Essay.

In both “Vendetta” and “The Schoolteachers Guest”, both stories show that the cultural forces did lead to them taking their revenge, in the most different ways possible, this being affected by their culture and communities as both stories were set in different time scales and different surroundings, vendetta being set in Italy in the 1900’s and the schoolteachers guest being set in the 1800’s in Agua Santa, South America. Both writers portray these very well in the stories interlinking the culture and personal forces with the way the two women got their revenge.

“The Schoolteachers Guest” was written by Isabel Allende and was set in Agua Santa, in the south of America, in the early 1800’s. In the schoolteachers guest the main lead, Ines, was a very headstrong person, determined and a “well respected matron of the community”. Her strong links and family bonding with the community determined her role even more as she was “the towns only schoolteacher”. the writer portrayed Ines as this hard going disciplined woman but also a woman who had a son whom she cared for, this arouses a feeling of love between the mother and son, the writer explains how her son was “the centre of inclination to indulge him” making him first priority in her world but then again disciplining him at the same time.

So that fateful day arrived when her son would be breathing his last, picking up a mango , the mango farmer got wary of this and shot the gun to warn him, only to shoot him in the head. The writer doesn’t say why or what reason the boy picked up the mango for, so it is open to suspicion whether he did it for the good or to just steal it. However the community, because of their close bond with Ines were outraged and wanted to “tear the perpetrator limb from limb”, the mango farmer knew this and “fled, never meaning to return”. Ines, being a spiritual and strong willed person knew that the farmer’s day would soon come too,.

The writer expresses her emotional pain for the loss of her son through anger, making Ines out to be this strong willed person therefore leading her to have such a strong opinion of the mango farmer, that his life will be taken just as he did to her son. to be great believers of fate. The writer shows their anger by them throwing mango’s “which they threw through the window”, In the specific paragraph the writer expresses words of disgust and a gross image in the readers head, saying the mango had “burst open, spilling a viscous juice and impregnating the walls with a golden blood”, this horrific image left after this is expressing the fact that the boy’s death was such that it reflected back into the mango farmer’s own house, saying the juice of the fruit was like blood, almost as if it was the son’s blood on the walls, and just disgracing the mango farmer’s house, because of this dreadful deed he did. And the main man who was fronting this revenge was Riad Halabi.

Riad Halabi was a man who entered Agua Santa the day the boy had been murdered, and funnily enough had been caught up in the murder and was the main one consoling Ines, and the community, even though he knew nothing of the boy himself. Ines’s sons death had determined Halabi’s fate in Agua Santa so he had decided to stay. So in Halabi the writer gives us a leader, this man who had never met Ines’s son still had managed to get into everyone’s lives by being this leader, and preparing things as if “he were a member of the family”. there writer here is making a leader out of a stranger, showing that the death of this beloved boy was a weakness, that the community were very easily let into by someone whom they had never met before, and how Halabi had this quality instinct in him to be this man who people consoled their thoughts and feelings in. This shows the type of community they were also, because of their trust in just about everyone in the community, they had every faith in people who had also entered their lives, especially at this critical point in their lives.

So when the farmers day did come, and It was ironically enough Ines who did the deed by chopping the mango farmers head off, the community were not surprised or at all disappointed , but they celebrated as if it was a joyous occasion and to Ines it was a weight lifted off her shoulders, it was as if her son could finally rest in his grave, and she too could move on. Killing the mango farmer didn’t make Ines a criminal or make her most wanted, but
the community thanked her almost for it, and so she got away with it.

Ines killed the farmer in the most brutal way, showing her ruthless nature through the killing, by chopping his head off she expressed her attitude to revenge. The writer uses a sense of irony, by Ines killing the mango farmer in a execution like killing, this shows Ines feelings about the death of her son, that she remained bitter about this to the point till she killed the mango farmer, and she didn’t feel any remorse for this but just explained this setting as “fate”.

A person who describes this as just fate must be a ruthless killer, who has no respect for the law of justice, but in that time and place justice was a thing only brought through revenge. Ines’s way of killing the mango farmer portrayed her as this woman who did not get over the death of her son, and a cold blooded killer. The writer does not empathise on this but just merely explains the whole avenge in one sentence, “Ines had just cut off the head of a guest in her boarding house”.

What the writer here is trying to aim at is the fact that the community respected Ines to such an extent that her killing someone like this wasn’t such a big issue, because avenging the death of her son was her reason for doing this. The people of Agua Santa sound like a place where people take the law into their own hands, be it justice or not.

The writer here portrays the community as great believers of fate, and Ines justified herself by saying the old man had “very bad luck”. She explains that the mango farmer was driving when a rock shattered his car window, and a car window to some people back then symbolized that of a mirror. And tradition of bad luck is that breaking a mirror gives seven years bad luck, and indeed it did. So from this you can tell that the writer is putting across a superstitious element in the story, enhancing the culture with this also. The writer shows minor things such as this to be big things which the community pay careful consideration to, as they believe in such things as this, which comes with the culture.

So Ines’s culture did make a big difference to her actions and the way she took her vengeance, and the community also affected by the culture of their surroundings also made a difference, as the people close to her helped her in killing by encouraging Ines to take her revenge as brutally as she did then. So when word got round that the perpetrator had been killed by none other than Ines herself, people did not judge or stare but celebrate in warmth. It was like a victory for them, had finally taken their vengeance on what they saw as this horrible cold heartless mango farmer who shot one of their own kind.

The people of Agua Santa seem the type of people who just judge people on their looks and how they appear on first hand, as they did with Riad Halabi, he came in at just the right time and consoled the people, and they automatically chose him as a leader person, but with the mango farmer they didn’t and this is their prejudice. They didn’t bother giving the mango farmer a fair trial, but just casted him a ruthless man out to kill innocent boys. It is open to suspicion what the boy’s intentions were about the mango he picked up, but they did not stop to wonder.

So the people of Agua Santa celebrated when they heard the news that the mango farmer was dead, and the writer describes the scene as joyful as there were “more people than on All Saints Day”, a day where people have a remembrance of the dead. The writer here is trying to imply that the boy’s death was symbolic and he was almost like a young innocent saint. As these people wined and dined and became joyful, others in the community were gladly helping in burying the body. The writer says that the people are celebrating the dead, then again burying the dead at the same time, without any remorse, so the writer here is trying to imply that the boy was somewhat of a saint and the mango farmer was just nothing.

Where they buried the body had a hint of irony in it, as it was the place where the mango farmer had committed the act of killing the boy, but it was also to be his grave. It was like a cycle, the whole thing started there, and ended there. The people of the community “returned their salutations with more than ordinary enthusiasm”, while Halabi maintaining his leading role in the community led the way to the farmers burial spot, along with the help from people in the community, who showed signs on gratitude and pride as Ines and Halabi n the rest were doing this.

However vendetta held very different surroundings but still consist of the same concept of getting justice.

Vendetta was set in the 1880’s, and was written by Guy de Maupassant, It was written a while ago where the phrase every man for himself was literally done and used back there, as the life they led was all about the mafia and it being set in Italy, things like that were naturally common. The culture of the area, which was set in Sicily, did affect the old widow’s behaviour towards her taking her revenge on Nicolas Ravolti, the man who killed her son. The vendetta was her promising her son that she would take revenge and the man who killed her son will taste death, as she said while her son was lying dead in her arms, she said “you will be avenged my son”…

The widow Saverini lived in a very deserted area where the writer describes her surroundings as “barren” and “clustered”, she makes it so that it reflects on the widow’s personality, that after living on this barren coast all these years has brushed off on the widow’s behaviour and attitude.

The writer also says that it was a place where “scarcely a ship ventures”, this shows that the woman was old and also alone, the place she lived in didn’t consist of many people living there, but just her and her son. Her culture around her was very isolating, just leaving her living in that little house “overhanging the sea”. The isolation of this woman’s surroundings must’ve made her very self dependant on herself and not rely on others as much and this harsh surroundings was what must’ve moulded her character. The writer here is almost making a philosophical point that the culture people may live in, may affect their nature and the way they are, which is what happened with the widow, in her deserted surroundings.

So as the writer is describing the surroundings, he is also setting the scene for the widow, how her character will be like, we can automatically assume that her surroundings and her personality are both linked. The loneliness and isolation of the place is what made the widow’s self determination grow more, that she felt that it was up to her to fulfil this promise she had made to her son while he was lying dead in her arms. And also because of this love she had for her “poor” and “little” son which drove her energy into becoming this bitter woman living and breathing for revenge. It was a strange sense of vocabulary that the writer used 2 describe the widow’s son, saying he’s “little” when in fact he was a grown man, this here you can tell the writer is trying to arouse sympathy from the reader and create this emotional bond between mother and son.

Nicolas Ravolti (the murderer) “treacherously stabbed” the widows son, and then quickly “escaped that night”, this is very much portraying Nicolas Ravolti as a coward and maybe not of someone who was of much importance. When the widow Saverini saw her beloved boy she just lay there and shed tears, and so then made her promise to him. Her mind frame seems of a clever woman, very determined and not keen to let go of things, but however on the other hand she seems bitter about the death of her son, her attitude towards the death of her son is not what is really expected of a widow but that could also be because of the influence of her surroundings. Her surroundings had a very sinister element to it where ships look like “nests of prey”, so this could also have a big effect on the widows character.

Especially since the woman had no “male relations”, it was up to her to take up this vendetta. Whereas in usual circumstances and by tradition, vendetta meaning revenge, in Italy would usually have been taken up y a male member of family but in the widow’s case there was no family, no relation, no friend of the family to do this, and so this is her dangerous element showing in the story. The writer here is saying that an old woman would be able to take up a vendetta like this, it just shows how much the lifestyle around her had affected her mind.

She accepted the challenge in a attitude which showed that she wasn’t your average lady, she wasn’t very sociable, as she lived in a deserted place, and you could tell with her son’s death that she didn’t have any friends, as when her son got buried, “his name ceased to be mentioned in bonafacio”. It could have been the fact that she just wasn’t a very sociable person, but it also could have been that because of the dangerous element in her, this made the community wary of her and they stayed away, but all that is open to suspicion as the writer didn’t give us any clues on why she may be so lonely. The writer however did lead the culture and community round her and it was like a pathway to her final destructive feature, which was of that to kill Ravolti, so again in this, the culture did affect her with why it lead her to take revenge.

The author uses the widow Saverini’s dog semillante meaning bright and sprightly as the murderer completely contradicting his name and his nature. The writer made the role of the dog in the story as “the murderer”. But then again he says that the dog too, were “inconsolable” with the death of her master, giving the dog a personality, and arousing sympathy for him. The widow however used him as this device mechanism, training him to be this ruthless killer, using his weakness as her gain. The writer already created tension in the atmosphere with the cold harsh surroundings, and again, this refers closely to the culture; this culture has trained this woman in to believing in a certain manner.

It has had such a great impact on her that she’s got a one track mind, a killing instinct in her, which she’s passing down to her dog Semillante. The writer says how she had an “inspiration of savage vindictive ferocity”, this is just expressing the widow’s negative extreme harsh anger she’s feeling, which afterwards she went to God to ask him to help her with this vengeance. The writer’s language here is very vivid, he says she had an “inspiration” to do this, as if she was ordained to fulfil this vendetta and she went to the church to even ask God for his help. So the writer is showing a spiritual side to the widow, as it seems she had every faith in God.

She used to leave the dog in the kennel, as it “howled” all night to be fed, and this hunger she used as her gain. The writer showed the widow’s clever side in this by building up Semillante’s “maddened” hunger is what drove the widow’s energy and she used that as her focal point in gaining what she wanted, so when she did finally get the dog fully trained to be a ruthless killer she set off after nearly 3months of training the dog. The widow must’ve been a very patient lady, cunning and very wise as day by day she plotted and schemed a plan which seemed almost foolproof.

Her son was the only thing in her life so when he died, the writer made the dog semillante the only thing going in the widow’s life, and the writer made it so that no one would take away the widow’s son that easily. Even though she was very patient, the writer also says that the widow was very “restless” as she looked at “the murderer”, the writer here is referring to the dog as the murderer, His style of writing about the dog is very vivid, as previously in the story he was giving the dog a soul almost, and now this soul had turned black, and no emotion or nothing is in it except just anger and hunger for food.

She dressed herself up as a “tattered old beggar man” to avoid suspicion and also because in that culture and that sort of environment back then it was not approved of old or young women to be going out by themselves. As most women had hardly any rights at all, it would’ve been looked down upon. The writer did reflect a lot back on the culture here and which bounced back on the widow’s personality. When she did see Nicolas Ravolti she didn’t hesitate to kill him, just straightaway she set her dog Semillante on him, knowing that the dog was extra hungry that day, she felt no compassion for Ravolti as she shouted out orders to Semillante to “tear him! Tear him!”. This just shows the old lady as bitter and being very cold as she just watched the dog savour Nicolas and didn’t show any sympathy.

That was her vindictive side which finally came out as she was taking her revenge. She killed Ravolti in the most brutal way, getting ravaged by a wild beast while he lay helpless. The widow had been bitter all this time, and she knew the only way to make Ravolti suffer as she did was to make the dog savour him bit by bit, so for that 5min while he lay helpless, it was as if it was reflecting back to her pain, and how she suffered 3months without her son, so in this the writer puts reflection back in also. And the choice of words the writer wrote for the widow when she told the dog to “tear him”, this in itself was explaining the anger the widow had inside of her.

So both Vendetta and the Schoolteachers guest have different cultural forces that affect their revenge. In the schoolteachers guest Ines kills the mango farmer in such a public way, with the whole community knowing about it whereas in the vendetta the widow Saverini had to go in disguise to kill Nicolas Ravolti, this is partly because both stories were set in different time scales, so both writers reflected the times the stories were set in, and put it in the actual story. Even though we did not know exactly when the stories were set, slight clues and hints made it clear.

Both the authors wrote the story so that the culture had a big part to play in both the women taking their revenge, their surroundings, location was built up and described heavily by the authors, and also their role in the community. Other characters in the stories such as Riad Halabi in the schoolteachers guest and the dog Saverini in the vendetta also had big roles in the story, one being the leader, the other being the murderer. Halabi was used as the comforter, the consoler, and the man who buried the body, the dog Saverini however was used as the loyal pet, she was the follower and afterwards used as the murderer, who killed Ravolti. So both characters had important roles in the stories.

The community also held a big importance in the stories, as this lead the way to how the two women killed the two men. Ines in the schoolteachers guest was a very important character in her community and with the support of her fellow people in her surroundings she chose an execution like killing. This would’ve only worked with Ines because as she had the whole community around her, an execution would have been a perfect way of killing, as in executions usually there are spectators that witness the event, so had this been done in vendetta, it wouldn’t have been very appropriate, as the widow wasn’t popular with the community. The author wrote that Ines had just chopped his head off with an axe. So that the people can see that the death of the boy was not to be taken lightly, but still she managed to convince herself that it was justified?

Her idea of of fate and justice seems to be interlinked, however that is not so. I believe that even though the mango farmer did not mean to shoot the boy, his intentions were not wrong and so he should’ve been given a fair trial. The widow Saverini’s idea of justice was purely the same except the widow used her wit and intelligence and planned the event, whereas Ines just left it up to fate to decide the time, date and place it would happen.

The widow’s ideology of the dog becoming this mean killing machine was completely contradicting the nature of the dog and as she did do this it seemed as though her whole mind frame of thinking was all about killing. This again relating to the culture, the writer clearly portrays the widow’s surroundings as very lonely, deserted and isolated and this had a big effect on her persona, she had nothing better to do but to do this the whole day, whereas Ines had a life and left it up to fate to decide upon this.

Both the writers did clearly state that both women were saddened but also very bitter. Getting justice for their sons’ murder could not have been gained by killing that murderer themselves. It makes them just as bad. A fair trial and a fair verdict by the law are necessary and not doing that isn’t exactly justice. They did the crime purely for their benefit, to help them get over it, not for their sons. I think both of the women were too bitter for their own good.

Both women did get that little bit of satisfaction as they took their revenge, Ines had finally killed the person who had shot her son, and she had killed him in the sense that it was meant to be and it was payback. And the widow Saverini’s satisfaction was that she got to fulfil that promise she made to her dying son and she had also finally when getting home “slept well”.

“Vendetta” and “The Schoolteachers Guest” Essay

Case Summary: The Murder of Jessica Lundsford Essay

Case Summary: The Murder of Jessica Lundsford Essay.

On February 23, 2005 a nine-year old girl in Homosassa, Florida disappeared after attending a Wednesday evening church service. She was missing for almost 3 weeks before police found her body in a trash bag, holding a purple stuffed dolphin, in a grave no more than 3 feet deep. Publicly released autopsy reports said that the little girl, Jessica Lunsford, who dreamed of being a fashion designer and Olympic swimmer, had managed to tear two fingers through the garbage bag before suffocating to death.

Reports say that a neighbor, 46-year-old John Couey (who was drug hazed) broke into the family’s unsecured mobile home at 3am and kidnapped Jessica, covering her mouth and telling her to keep quiet.

He held her captive for more than a day and during this time she was the victim of sexual molestation and rape. She was told to stay in the closet while he went to work and did other activities. Although there is no substantial evidence to prove how long she was captive, it’s very possible it was as long as three days.

On the last day, Couey tied Jessica up with stereo wire, forced her into trash bags and buried her alive in his half-sister’s backyard, visible from Jessica’s house, only 150 yards away.

Couey’s criminal record spans for more than 30 years and 24 arrests, including DUI, burglary, larceny, fraud, drug charges, and fondling a child under 16 (making him a sex offender in the state of Florida). Although he was a registered sex offender in Citrus County, he had not yet registered his new address, where he lived across the street from Jessica. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but he was paroled in 1980 because of prison overcrowding.

Couey’s niece, Madie Secord, testified to purchasing a bus ticket in her name to Savannah, Ga., at her uncle’s request after Jessica went missing. Upon burying Jessica Lunsford alive, Couey fled to Georgia in hopes of avoiding discovery and criminal charges. He was arrested in Augusta for violating probation charges (crossing state lines without informing authorities). Couey was one of the registered sex offenders police tried to find after Jessica’s disappearance. After being taken into custody, he confessed to the charges after a FBI administered polygraph test. However, because the officer’s denied him his Miranda rights, the confession was not admissible into court. He was charged with capital murder, burglary with battery, kidnapping and sexual battery on a child less than 12 years of age, but he pleaded not guilty.

The residents of Couey’s half sisters house were interviewed twice regarding questioning on the whereabouts of Couey. They were informed that he had violated his probation by not reporting his new address. It is possible that Jessica was still alive in the house while these interviews occurred. However, his family claimed to not know his whereabouts. They were taken into custody as well.

In order to have a more impartial jury, the trial was moved to Miami. Besides Couey’s confession (which was not admissible in court because officers ignored his requests of lawyer presence), investigators also found Jessica’s fingerprints in Couey’s closet as well as her blood and his semen on his mattress. DNA analyst Roshale Gaytmenn also testified that she found the DNA profiles of Jessica and Couey on pillows that were found in Couey’s room. The jury also viewed the stereo speaker wires that were used to bind Jessica’s wrists. A fiber analyst testified that the ligatures matched wires that ran from inside Couey’s room to an antenna on his roof.

The defense claims that Couey suffered from mental retardation caused by a brain damage, lifelong substance abuse and an abusive childhood. John Couey’s troubles supposedly began when his biological father pushed his teenage mother out of a moving car when she was seven months pregnant with him. Couey was born prematurally a few weeks later. He claims that his mother fed him sugar water rather than formula and his stepfather beat him and tied him to a bed once as punishment for bedwetting. When his mother freed him from his restraints, the man allegedly chased after him and slammed his head repeatedly in a door. As a child he was said to be shy, quiet and withdrawn, possibly as a result of his speech impediment and oversized ears, for which he was teased.

Public defender, Alan Fanter said Couey suffered from mental retardation and paranoid delusions brought on by childhood trauma that made him incapable of sound decision-making. He has the “mind of a child”. Couey suffered from visual and auditory hallucinations that dated back to his early childhood, when he and his sister were shuffled among different relatives after leaving their mother, according to forensic psychologist Dr. Robert Berland. Berland said he based his conclusions on interviews with Couey’s relatives, including an aunt, his sister and his cousin, but that most of the information came from an interview with Couey in July 2006. Couey’s aunt, Virginia Kloetzer, testified in a videotaped interview that, while Couey was living with her family, he once cut up her nightgown into shreds.

“He said, “My mind told me to do it,’” said Kloetzer, who took Couey in when he was 5 and kept him for about four years. “I said, ‘Next time your mind tells you to do something that’s not right, you tell it “no.”‘”His half sister (whom he lived in the house with), claims that she and Couey had shared a “small” rock of cocaine the night he abducted Jessica. However, she denied having any knowledge that Jessica was ever in the trailer. Dr. Robert Berland, who administered Couey’s IQ test, said that the results were several points below the medical standard for retardation. He credited his IQ to childhood brain damage and a tendency for sniffing glue and gas as a teen.

Gene Secord, Couey’s nephew, testified that Couey had told him, while they were in jail together in 2006, that Jessica’s death was “in the past” and that if his sister had loved him more, the murder would not have occurred.

To earn an official pardon from a death sentence, lawyers for Couey, who spent most of his trial doodling in coloring books, must convince 5th Circuit Judge Richard Howard that he actually suffers from mental retardation, a burden that experts in the field describe as an “uphill battle.” A Florida law, as well as a decision made in 2002 by the Supreme Court states that offenders with mental retardation cannot be executed.

The court can chose between two sentences, the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole, the only two options available in accordance with Florida law. The jury only adjourned for 4 hours before reaching a 10-2 verdict that imposes the death penalty. The jurors’ decision, which does not need to be unanimous, is an advisory sentence to Judge Richard Howard, who makes the final decision. Judge Howard will hear evidence from both sides to determine whether or not Couey is deserving of mercy, and issue a formal ruling on August 10, 2007.

Since the 2005 murder, Mark Lunsford, Jessica’s Father had pushed for stricter sex offender laws. The “Jessica Lunsford Act” has already passed as a law in Florida. It calls for “prison sentences of 25 years to life for sex offenses against children under age 12, better registration of convicted sex offenders and a GPS notification system to track down probation violators.”Fortunately, some good came out of such a horrific crime.

It brought new, tougher laws for sex offenders, as well as better monitoring of their actions, and maybe even a new respect for what they can be capable of. In addition, it brought more attention to child abuse, both mental and physical, and what effect if can have on our behavior as an adult. It made us ask at what point an individual should be held accountable for his or her actions. In this case, maybe that question is best answered by John Evander Couey himself. He said that he was under the influence of crack-cocaine when he abducted Jessica Lunsford and that he would apologize to her in heaven. If he was not aware that his actions were wrong, why would he feel the need to apologize?


“Brain damage and terrible childhood: Jury hears killer’s Mitigating evidence”. CourtTVNews. March 14, 2007. http://www.courttv.com/trials/lunsford/031307-pm_ctv.html”Couey guilty of murdering 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford”. CNN.com. March 8, 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/07/girl.slain/index.html?iref=newssearch”In evidence: Jessica Lundsford Murder Photo Gallery”. CourtTVNews. http://www.courttv.com/trials/lunsford/photo_gallery/index1.html?curPhoto=1″Judge: Florida girl’s killing ‘beyond words’”. CNN.com. March 23, 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/22/lunsford.case/index.html?iref=newssearch”Sheriff: Evidence points to sex abuse”. CNN.com. March 21, 2005.


Case Summary: The Murder of Jessica Lundsford Essay

The Ideology Of Timothy McVeigh Essay

The Ideology Of Timothy McVeigh Essay.














  • Timothy McVeigh. (2007, April 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:45, April 21, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_McVeigh&oldid=124496763




The Ideology Of Timothy McVeigh Essay