Show #45: Predators Among Us - Interview With Dr. Anna Salter
- Thread starter Niall
- Start date
Eva
Jedi
I have to admit that I wasn't looking forward to this show, that book title scared me :(
I started listening cautiously but the way it unfolded, everything was discussed in such a matter-of-fact and calm way that I could follow it, other than a few too many details at times from Dr Salter that made me choke.
Thank you for managing to bring up even the worst truths in such a way that I can listen and understand without being lost in emotional reactions.
I started listening cautiously but the way it unfolded, everything was discussed in such a matter-of-fact and calm way that I could follow it, other than a few too many details at times from Dr Salter that made me choke.
Thank you for managing to bring up even the worst truths in such a way that I can listen and understand without being lost in emotional reactions.
Psyche said:
Yeah. It reminds me of some of the agonizing we've done over the years about this forum member or that one, mainly those that cause "splits". And, of course, they always justify their "new views" and variations as an antidote to "groupthink" but are unable to bring in any hard data - just their personal opinions. Very interesting.
For the ones interested in this topic, you can watch an extensive interview of Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinsky conducted by psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz.
Here's the documentary about Sam Vaknin that Laura mentioned - 'I, Psychopath': http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-psychopath/
Although it focuses more on the coordinated networks of pathologicals with power, another must-watch documentary on the topic of sexual predators is 'Scientology, the CIA, and MIVILUDES: Cults of Abuse': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOQzmtU1SjM
Although it focuses more on the coordinated networks of pathologicals with power, another must-watch documentary on the topic of sexual predators is 'Scientology, the CIA, and MIVILUDES: Cults of Abuse': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOQzmtU1SjM
Thanks for the links and the show! :)
Anna Salter reminded me somehow of Aleta Edwards, very driven and compassionate. I very much agree with Chu's statement: I wish there were more people like her (and Aleta Edwards) in this world.
I hope she will benefit greatly from what Laura was telling her about 'Political Ponerology' and Sandra Brown's work.
I watched the interview with the iceman and found it interesting. He seemed 'likeable', but no, not trustworthy, which is the distinction that Anna Salter made during the show. You can like people, but that doesn't mean you can trust them.
I will definitely watch, 'I psychopath'.
My kids and I talked a bit about psychopathy and predators after the show and my eldest said that he thought that young people with proper knowledge and training from a very young age onwards would be able to recognize psychopaths. I don't know whether that is true, but I thought it was an interesting thought. Just speculating myself, but I think that babies and toddlers before they lose themselves, because they have to adapt to their culture and society might also be able to recognize predators/psychopaths, even if they don't have the language to describe what they see. Still speculating, wouldn't animals (like cats and dogs and horses for instance) know when they are dealing with psychopaths? For instance, our Cat didn't like my ex and staid away from him and when he left our dog wasn't sad at all, although he had taken care of her most of the time. Paying attention to our small kids and animals might give some clues?
Added:
Also, my youngest never liked my ex and almost never spoke to him. He staid away as far as possible. I am not completely sure whether my ex is a psychopath, but he ticks many boxes.
Anna Salter reminded me somehow of Aleta Edwards, very driven and compassionate. I very much agree with Chu's statement: I wish there were more people like her (and Aleta Edwards) in this world.
I hope she will benefit greatly from what Laura was telling her about 'Political Ponerology' and Sandra Brown's work.
I watched the interview with the iceman and found it interesting. He seemed 'likeable', but no, not trustworthy, which is the distinction that Anna Salter made during the show. You can like people, but that doesn't mean you can trust them.
I will definitely watch, 'I psychopath'.
My kids and I talked a bit about psychopathy and predators after the show and my eldest said that he thought that young people with proper knowledge and training from a very young age onwards would be able to recognize psychopaths. I don't know whether that is true, but I thought it was an interesting thought. Just speculating myself, but I think that babies and toddlers before they lose themselves, because they have to adapt to their culture and society might also be able to recognize predators/psychopaths, even if they don't have the language to describe what they see. Still speculating, wouldn't animals (like cats and dogs and horses for instance) know when they are dealing with psychopaths? For instance, our Cat didn't like my ex and staid away from him and when he left our dog wasn't sad at all, although he had taken care of her most of the time. Paying attention to our small kids and animals might give some clues?
Added:
Also, my youngest never liked my ex and almost never spoke to him. He staid away as far as possible. I am not completely sure whether my ex is a psychopath, but he ticks many boxes.
There has been much information here, on SoTT, and in past interviews and yet Anna Salter sent chills within at what she describes. Anna's fears of her profession (as Psych posts: "when the staff is really split") is a horrible Red Flag.
Thank you SoTT, for having another very good guest and show. Looking forward to Thornhill this coming weekend, too!
Thank you SoTT, for having another very good guest and show. Looking forward to Thornhill this coming weekend, too!
Indeed, great show with Anna Salter,
Watched the Kuklinski video. Interesting that he thanked Dr. Dietz for telling him what he was and why. I actually liked the guy for his honesty, while at the same time being repulsed by his ability to kill, even torture, with no remorse.
But I also felt sorry for him because he knew he was incapable of forming meaningful relationships or incapable of feeling anything resembling love or empathy towards another human, or sentient, being.
I also came away with the impression that killing was the only thing that would allow him to experience any kind of feeling.
Anyhow, that's my take on it.
Watched the Kuklinski video. Interesting that he thanked Dr. Dietz for telling him what he was and why. I actually liked the guy for his honesty, while at the same time being repulsed by his ability to kill, even torture, with no remorse.
But I also felt sorry for him because he knew he was incapable of forming meaningful relationships or incapable of feeling anything resembling love or empathy towards another human, or sentient, being.
I also came away with the impression that killing was the only thing that would allow him to experience any kind of feeling.
Anyhow, that's my take on it.
H-KQGE
Dagobah Resident
Mariama said:
I watched that "ice man" video too (I had actually seen it a little while back, I remember the D.A. well) & his childhood story is pretty common. Since that was over thirty years ago, similar upbringing tales have just increased, the relentless beatings & religious "discipline", & especially the "hunted becomes the hunter" scenarios with teenagers. Still no excuse, but another example of psychopathology in action & the effects on youth. Interestingly he compartmentalized his murders & refused to think about them or they would "hurt him." But the calmness & lack of emotion he described about each murder, the way he viewed them at the time as "hmm, look at how his head blew-up from a shotgun blast" showed just how far he descended. The D.A. seemed to be struggling to talk about some of the cases too, I could see him shaking. I really couldn't watch the whole thing the first time, so this time I made it half-way, I don't if I'll watch the rest. I'll be checking "I Psychopath" too.
I'm glad to hear that you can talk to your children about this, & it sounds like good dialogue. I'm convinced that young people with the right education would spot predators quicker than normal. Kids do have the capacity to sense some extremely unsavoury behaviours such as paedophilic actions. If they can perceive portions of that which is normally unseen by adults, ("you're just imagining things my dear" etc) then this will entirely be likely, not just possible.
Laura's words in one of "The Wave" books springs to mind, (paraphrasing) "someone has been setting-up the spreading of these (psychopath) genes to be widespread at this period of time." Ok that was a poor paraphrase (off of the top of my head) but I think the point she was making was pretty clear to all who read it. I hope.
Yeah, animals are good at this & incredibly this knowledge seems to be "scattered to the winds" somewhat. The first I knew of these things (other than cultural tales from relatives) was from many movies, especially horror movies (when they were still scary) where animals repeatedly sounded alarms before some danger arrived. Of course people wouldn't listen, just as they don't listen to kids. That said, so-called primitive lands still take heed, though less & less as the western paradigms creep in.
Thank you all for covering such an important topic with such clarity and compassion. Dr Salter - what a wonderful, caring and courageous human being!!! I had another opportunity today to speak with my girls again about the 'predators among us', that folk are NOT all the same! By openly admitting I cannot recognise liars or psychopaths - hopefully they will gain the confidence to think for themselves and not be too trusting with everyone they meet.
Here in the UK we have had alot of high profile celebrity sex offender cases in recent years (Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall etc) - 'people' (although that description is not apt imo, 'animals' seems more appropriate) who hid (and abused) behind their celebrity status. Today it was reported that such celebrities may in fact be handed longer jail sentence for abusing their position of power.
Although such changes are positive and another welcome incentive for more victims to speak out, one of the fundamental issues raised again in the show - that of psychopathy was still not mentioned. A director of the Prison Reform Trust says there are "long waiting lists for sex offence treatment programmes in prisons" - yet no mention of those offenders who are psychopathic and are therefore NOT 'treatable'!!!
Sex offences sentencing overhaul: More emphasis on long-term impact on victims as celebrities have fame used against them
Heather Saul Thursday 12 December 2013
Celebrities who commit sex-offences could see their public image used against them when being sentenced as part of an overhaul of decade-old sentencing guidance for judges in England and Wales.
Sex-offenders who are considered to have abused their position of power may be handed longer jail sentences when the guidelines come into effect in April 2014.
Previous “good character” may be considered as an aggravating factor when it has been used to commit a sexual offence, new guidelines drawn up by the Sentencing Council said.
The guidelines cover more than 50 offences including rape, child sex offences and trafficking and focus more on the long-term and psychological impact on victims than the previous 2004 guidelines.
They also introduce a higher starting point for sentences for offences such as rape of 15 years.
The new guidance was drawn up by the Sentencing Council after a public consultation and research was undertaken with victims groups, medical practitioners, police, NGOs, magistrates and judges.
“Across the justice system, changes have been made to ensure that the alleged offenders' behaviour and the context and circumstances of the incident are scrutinised, rather than the credibility of the victim,” Chief Constable David Whatton, national policing lead for violence and public protection, said.
Other significant changes include the removal of “ostensible consent” from the guidance, that is, the concept that a child over the age of 13 can agree to sex, because the Sentencing Council felt it was the wrong approach to take when looking at the offence as “children do not consent to their own abuse“.
A greater emphasis will also be placed on grooming committed by individuals and gangs.
The guidelines come following a series of high- profile sex offence cases, including revelations about disgraced TV presenter Jimmy Savile, that lead to high numbers of sex attack victims coming forward.
Cases involving grooming gangs in Rochdale and Oxford separately raised questions about social care and attitudes held towards victims.
Sentencing Council chairman Lord Justice Treacy said the new guidelines will make real changes to the way in which offenders are sentenced for these “very serious, sensitive and complex offences”.
"It will help judges and magistrates sentence in a way which protects our communities from this kind of offending and the suffering it causes”, he said.
The new approach will allow for sentences that reflect what the victim had endured and take in a full profile of what the offender had done, such as grooming victims or abusing trust, he added.
They will also take into account the increased use of technology in sex offending since the previous guidelines were issued.
A new aggravating factor is “recording the crime”, as technological advances have seen filming and photographing victims become increasingly more common in many of the offences committed.
The growth in online offending has led to the Council including offences committed remotely, such as via a webcam, when dealing with crimes such as sexual activity with a child.
Judges will also have to examine aspects such as offenders concealing their real age, grooming via social media or asking children to share indecent photos of themselves.
While the Sentencing Council can recommend a starting point, offenders can still only receive the maximum sentence available at the time the offence was committed.
Barnardo's deputy director of strategy Alison Worsley said: “It is difficult to imagine the torment experienced by the vulnerable victims of crimes such as these.
”The publication of this new sentencing guideline will help to ensure the focus is on the perpetrator and not the victim.”
Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said there are long waiting lists for sex offence treatment programmes in prisons and, despite the Sentencing Council recognising internet-based offending, there are currently no treatment programmes available which address this in prison.
“This poses a significant challenge to indeterminate sentenced prisoners who have to satisfy the Parole Board that they are no longer a risk”, she said.
”Supportive services in the community such as CirclesUK provide an important contribution to rehabilitation, enabling people to take greater responsibility and reducing their level of risk.“
Victims' commissioner Baroness Helen Newlove, whose husband Garry was killed by a gang vandalising his car, said: ”These guidelines highlight how vital it is for the court to fully consider the physical and emotional trauma that a victim goes through before making a decision.“
Carolyn Hodrien, lead on rape and sexual offences for independent charity Victim Support, said they welcomed the greater focus the guidelines placed on the impact on the victim.
”It takes real courage for a victim to report these horrific crimes and it is vital they know that the criminal justice system will focus on the credibility of their evidence and the long-term impact the crime has had on them, not their perceived vulnerabilities.“
Peter Wanless, NSPCC chief executive, said sentencing should reflect the severe damage caused by "highly manipulative and devious sex offenders", who abuse positions of trust or their status as a celebrity to target children.
“Increasingly technology is playing a part in the way offenders seek out and groom children, who may attempt suicide or self-harm as a result of their abuse.
”The outdated view that children can in some way be complicit in their abuse must be stamped out. The new guidance is a step in the right direction towards addressing this terrible myth.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sex-offences-sentencing-overhaul-more-emphasis-on-longterm-impact-on-victims-as-celebrities-have-fame-used-against-them-8999451.html
Here in the UK we have had alot of high profile celebrity sex offender cases in recent years (Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall etc) - 'people' (although that description is not apt imo, 'animals' seems more appropriate) who hid (and abused) behind their celebrity status. Today it was reported that such celebrities may in fact be handed longer jail sentence for abusing their position of power.
Although such changes are positive and another welcome incentive for more victims to speak out, one of the fundamental issues raised again in the show - that of psychopathy was still not mentioned. A director of the Prison Reform Trust says there are "long waiting lists for sex offence treatment programmes in prisons" - yet no mention of those offenders who are psychopathic and are therefore NOT 'treatable'!!!
Sex offences sentencing overhaul: More emphasis on long-term impact on victims as celebrities have fame used against them
Heather Saul Thursday 12 December 2013
Celebrities who commit sex-offences could see their public image used against them when being sentenced as part of an overhaul of decade-old sentencing guidance for judges in England and Wales.
Sex-offenders who are considered to have abused their position of power may be handed longer jail sentences when the guidelines come into effect in April 2014.
Previous “good character” may be considered as an aggravating factor when it has been used to commit a sexual offence, new guidelines drawn up by the Sentencing Council said.
The guidelines cover more than 50 offences including rape, child sex offences and trafficking and focus more on the long-term and psychological impact on victims than the previous 2004 guidelines.
They also introduce a higher starting point for sentences for offences such as rape of 15 years.
The new guidance was drawn up by the Sentencing Council after a public consultation and research was undertaken with victims groups, medical practitioners, police, NGOs, magistrates and judges.
“Across the justice system, changes have been made to ensure that the alleged offenders' behaviour and the context and circumstances of the incident are scrutinised, rather than the credibility of the victim,” Chief Constable David Whatton, national policing lead for violence and public protection, said.
Other significant changes include the removal of “ostensible consent” from the guidance, that is, the concept that a child over the age of 13 can agree to sex, because the Sentencing Council felt it was the wrong approach to take when looking at the offence as “children do not consent to their own abuse“.
A greater emphasis will also be placed on grooming committed by individuals and gangs.
The guidelines come following a series of high- profile sex offence cases, including revelations about disgraced TV presenter Jimmy Savile, that lead to high numbers of sex attack victims coming forward.
Cases involving grooming gangs in Rochdale and Oxford separately raised questions about social care and attitudes held towards victims.
Sentencing Council chairman Lord Justice Treacy said the new guidelines will make real changes to the way in which offenders are sentenced for these “very serious, sensitive and complex offences”.
"It will help judges and magistrates sentence in a way which protects our communities from this kind of offending and the suffering it causes”, he said.
The new approach will allow for sentences that reflect what the victim had endured and take in a full profile of what the offender had done, such as grooming victims or abusing trust, he added.
They will also take into account the increased use of technology in sex offending since the previous guidelines were issued.
A new aggravating factor is “recording the crime”, as technological advances have seen filming and photographing victims become increasingly more common in many of the offences committed.
The growth in online offending has led to the Council including offences committed remotely, such as via a webcam, when dealing with crimes such as sexual activity with a child.
Judges will also have to examine aspects such as offenders concealing their real age, grooming via social media or asking children to share indecent photos of themselves.
While the Sentencing Council can recommend a starting point, offenders can still only receive the maximum sentence available at the time the offence was committed.
Barnardo's deputy director of strategy Alison Worsley said: “It is difficult to imagine the torment experienced by the vulnerable victims of crimes such as these.
”The publication of this new sentencing guideline will help to ensure the focus is on the perpetrator and not the victim.”
Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said there are long waiting lists for sex offence treatment programmes in prisons and, despite the Sentencing Council recognising internet-based offending, there are currently no treatment programmes available which address this in prison.
“This poses a significant challenge to indeterminate sentenced prisoners who have to satisfy the Parole Board that they are no longer a risk”, she said.
”Supportive services in the community such as CirclesUK provide an important contribution to rehabilitation, enabling people to take greater responsibility and reducing their level of risk.“
Victims' commissioner Baroness Helen Newlove, whose husband Garry was killed by a gang vandalising his car, said: ”These guidelines highlight how vital it is for the court to fully consider the physical and emotional trauma that a victim goes through before making a decision.“
Carolyn Hodrien, lead on rape and sexual offences for independent charity Victim Support, said they welcomed the greater focus the guidelines placed on the impact on the victim.
”It takes real courage for a victim to report these horrific crimes and it is vital they know that the criminal justice system will focus on the credibility of their evidence and the long-term impact the crime has had on them, not their perceived vulnerabilities.“
Peter Wanless, NSPCC chief executive, said sentencing should reflect the severe damage caused by "highly manipulative and devious sex offenders", who abuse positions of trust or their status as a celebrity to target children.
“Increasingly technology is playing a part in the way offenders seek out and groom children, who may attempt suicide or self-harm as a result of their abuse.
”The outdated view that children can in some way be complicit in their abuse must be stamped out. The new guidance is a step in the right direction towards addressing this terrible myth.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sex-offences-sentencing-overhaul-more-emphasis-on-longterm-impact-on-victims-as-celebrities-have-fame-used-against-them-8999451.html
Olesya
Jedi Master
Thank you for the show. There was so much information brought in by all SoTT Talk Radio team! Watching Dr. Anna Salter's video's on youtube "Sex, Lies, and Sex Offenders", part 1 and part 2 _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sEqWlJbEX4 and _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwGVuZ54Eyg and, including the one posted on this thread, and what is really striking is how these monsters look so normal. To see how they change their stories, and calmly talk about these evil things they do, is shocking and revolting. And this glee that they exhibit when they finally tell how they fool people, and what they actually did, is really hard to watch. And yes, this is a big problem in the society, if someone think that she/he can easily spot a pedophile, psychopath or sadists. Double life, being 'nice', "helping' people with their problems when it's purpose to manipulate or deflect attention from themselves and what their doing, all these strategies they use, so they can continue doing what they're doing. They are predators, who prey on people. Many of them tell stories of abuse when they were children as if it were an excuse for their crimes. How many of these stories are true? Or they learned what to say to envoke pity? Doing what they doing with no remorse or regret whatsoever, shows that in many cases these stories are bogus. And what is it , as the one that abused his wife and molested and abused his stepdaughter, "I had no empathy for me, so why would I have empathy for anybody else"(paraphrasing)? It is the admission that he doesn't know what he's talking about? Calculating with the intent to manipulate.
I haven't read Anna Salter's book "Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists and Other Sex Offenders", so ordered it on amazon http://www.amazon.com/Predators-Pedophiles-Rapists-Other-Offenders/dp/0465071732
Watching the "Iceman interview" video, was hard. Kuklinski is not likable and how he talks about the murders and other events, it's revolting. Through all three parts, he changed his stories so much, it showed that he was lying through his teeth about the most of it in the beginning. Could it be that he was set up to be a fall guy for some crime/pedophile/porn/drug trafficking ring that was/is run by mafia/CIA/police? He said something about his friend that he didn't kill, was the reason that he was in prison. _http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski
He is a sociopath/psychopath, who was very violent and abusive to his wife and children. Was he capable of killing in cold blood? According to him, he was tested by mafia to kill with no questions asked while most of the killings he did when he was enraged. What it looks like he was more interested in getting money for murder than getting high from inflicting extreme pain and suffering. There are many inconsistencies in what he told during the interview. Could it be a compilation of many stories of sadism and extreme violence, dismemberment, done by others that he had a knowledge of (working in porn-bootlegging) and was told to say that he did it? He's death shortly after this interview and before he could testify in the trial of Sammy Gravano for the murder of New York Police Department Detective Peter Calabro is very suspicious. The same forensic pathologist Michael Baden who during the interview tried to convince the public that spilling cyanide solution on someone to murder is the same as the killing with cyanide in the gas chambers. So, what was the purpose of injecting someone with cyanide in the disco club murder that Kuklinski told he did it if it was so easy? During this interview, I had an impression that he even tried to point out to who the real perpetrators of all these sadistic crimes were, and not allowed to do that. How he scoffed when the psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz started to talk about Jeffrey Dahmer. He's brother Joseph is convicted pedophile and murderer, as Kuklinski said "we're from the same father". So, there is genetic component to it. When asked why what he was did the sadistic acts to animals, he was helped to identify it as to relief his boredom, "maybe a little excitement". Through the whole interview he looks like he's inventing stories about his 'feelings'. His facial expressions, especially what he did with his mouth, are really bizarre, osit.
And the questions I have: is how much from he was told about what he supposedly did was true? Psychopaths do like to take about their crimes. Could it be that he even talked about crimes that he didn't do? And why this interview was aired when it did? Who benefited from it? Those who were really responsible for sadistic crimes, those who watch the videos with torture and extreme sadistic and sexual content? Could it be that the answer is in "How did Kuklinski pull off one of the biggest hoaxes in criminal history??" _http://swallowingthecamel.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/the-iceman-lieth/
Was he less dangerous? No. He was violent with explosive temper, who beat his wife and who knows what else he made her do. She was manipulated and controlled by him through violence and then, by him being 'nice' to her. He maybe not sexually molested his children, because they were his children. He also said most likely he wouldn't kill a woman. During the incident with the knife he described smiling and enjoying it, he tested his wife. He enjoyed the power and control over her. And that is almost the same situation with the rapist in Ann Salter's video. Was Kuklinski a sadist? He gleefully talked about blowing someone's head off as a child may talk about breaking some toy apart. And what was said on various SoTT talk radio show, and pointed out once again in this one, the psychopaths in power are the most dangerous ones. All this minimizing and attempt to normalize violence, deviant sexual behavior, rape and sadism comes from them. Blaming the victims of their crimes is the commonly applied tactic. Children are traumatized if not through direct violence, molestation and sexual abuse, then by seeing violence directed at their mothers or through threats that they would be killed or harmed as it was with Kuklinski and his children.
In "I, Psychopath", when Sam Vaknin talked about psychopaths, he said (he forgot to include himself), "Most psychopaths are subtle. They are more like poison than a knife, and they are like slower working poison than cyanide". Well, he's not that subtle when watching from afar. In real life situation, individuals like him, could have hypnotizing effect on people. He is aggressive, hostile. And he wanted to be in control all the time, and for that he uses different techniques to keep the other person confused. "Charm", 'honesty', hostility, all to meet his needs for control. What was really striking is the struggle that the maker of the documentary went through. He was bullied constantly called names, then, charmed, and Vaknin is constantly shifting his manipulation technique. Vaknin's wife Lydija was in denial. She refused to see what he did as harmful to her in the long run. She still had the 'juice', the energy that Vaknin sucked out of her day by day. Behind her back he talked about her as if she didn't existed. By siding with him by not confronting his lies, when he told lies about the producer of the documentary, Ian Walker, and other people, she besides being his victims, became his accomplice, to her own detriment. What it eventually comes to, Vaknin laughingly talked about his "alleged mental illness" that he admits he wanted to use to make money. It's not mental illness per se, it's lack/absence of empathy. His score on the psychopathy list was 18, more than most criminals get. And psychopaths like him are far more dangerous to society as a whole than violent criminals. He's an example of a tormentor of the worst kind that drains and destroys people's lives. He is not human. The final episode of the documentary when Vaknin explains his "up and down" technique is astonishing and shocking to watch. Many psychopaths won't openly talk about what they do, they try to hide it. And here, it was in full view. The evil the psychopaths like him are!
The child abusers/molesters, 'pedophiles', sadists are protected by the system. The system designed by psychopaths in power, who are the abusers (not necessarily sexual offenders, although I might suspect many of them are), rapists, 'pedophiles', sadists. I's up do adults to teach children that what's had been taught for many generation before as in "there is good in everybody' is a big lie! Monsters are not only the characters in fairy tales. They live and walk among us. The predators, wolves in sheep's clothing. And it's a responsibility of adults to watch over their children, to talk to them and really listen to what they're saying, to be involved in their lives, to know what's really happening when they at school, at friend's house or any other social places. And most importantly, at home.
Thank you all once again. And many thanks to Anna Salter for her work!
I haven't read Anna Salter's book "Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists and Other Sex Offenders", so ordered it on amazon http://www.amazon.com/Predators-Pedophiles-Rapists-Other-Offenders/dp/0465071732
Watching the "Iceman interview" video, was hard. Kuklinski is not likable and how he talks about the murders and other events, it's revolting. Through all three parts, he changed his stories so much, it showed that he was lying through his teeth about the most of it in the beginning. Could it be that he was set up to be a fall guy for some crime/pedophile/porn/drug trafficking ring that was/is run by mafia/CIA/police? He said something about his friend that he didn't kill, was the reason that he was in prison. _http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski
He is a sociopath/psychopath, who was very violent and abusive to his wife and children. Was he capable of killing in cold blood? According to him, he was tested by mafia to kill with no questions asked while most of the killings he did when he was enraged. What it looks like he was more interested in getting money for murder than getting high from inflicting extreme pain and suffering. There are many inconsistencies in what he told during the interview. Could it be a compilation of many stories of sadism and extreme violence, dismemberment, done by others that he had a knowledge of (working in porn-bootlegging) and was told to say that he did it? He's death shortly after this interview and before he could testify in the trial of Sammy Gravano for the murder of New York Police Department Detective Peter Calabro is very suspicious. The same forensic pathologist Michael Baden who during the interview tried to convince the public that spilling cyanide solution on someone to murder is the same as the killing with cyanide in the gas chambers. So, what was the purpose of injecting someone with cyanide in the disco club murder that Kuklinski told he did it if it was so easy? During this interview, I had an impression that he even tried to point out to who the real perpetrators of all these sadistic crimes were, and not allowed to do that. How he scoffed when the psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz started to talk about Jeffrey Dahmer. He's brother Joseph is convicted pedophile and murderer, as Kuklinski said "we're from the same father". So, there is genetic component to it. When asked why what he was did the sadistic acts to animals, he was helped to identify it as to relief his boredom, "maybe a little excitement". Through the whole interview he looks like he's inventing stories about his 'feelings'. His facial expressions, especially what he did with his mouth, are really bizarre, osit.
And the questions I have: is how much from he was told about what he supposedly did was true? Psychopaths do like to take about their crimes. Could it be that he even talked about crimes that he didn't do? And why this interview was aired when it did? Who benefited from it? Those who were really responsible for sadistic crimes, those who watch the videos with torture and extreme sadistic and sexual content? Could it be that the answer is in "How did Kuklinski pull off one of the biggest hoaxes in criminal history??" _http://swallowingthecamel.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/the-iceman-lieth/
Was he less dangerous? No. He was violent with explosive temper, who beat his wife and who knows what else he made her do. She was manipulated and controlled by him through violence and then, by him being 'nice' to her. He maybe not sexually molested his children, because they were his children. He also said most likely he wouldn't kill a woman. During the incident with the knife he described smiling and enjoying it, he tested his wife. He enjoyed the power and control over her. And that is almost the same situation with the rapist in Ann Salter's video. Was Kuklinski a sadist? He gleefully talked about blowing someone's head off as a child may talk about breaking some toy apart. And what was said on various SoTT talk radio show, and pointed out once again in this one, the psychopaths in power are the most dangerous ones. All this minimizing and attempt to normalize violence, deviant sexual behavior, rape and sadism comes from them. Blaming the victims of their crimes is the commonly applied tactic. Children are traumatized if not through direct violence, molestation and sexual abuse, then by seeing violence directed at their mothers or through threats that they would be killed or harmed as it was with Kuklinski and his children.
In "I, Psychopath", when Sam Vaknin talked about psychopaths, he said (he forgot to include himself), "Most psychopaths are subtle. They are more like poison than a knife, and they are like slower working poison than cyanide". Well, he's not that subtle when watching from afar. In real life situation, individuals like him, could have hypnotizing effect on people. He is aggressive, hostile. And he wanted to be in control all the time, and for that he uses different techniques to keep the other person confused. "Charm", 'honesty', hostility, all to meet his needs for control. What was really striking is the struggle that the maker of the documentary went through. He was bullied constantly called names, then, charmed, and Vaknin is constantly shifting his manipulation technique. Vaknin's wife Lydija was in denial. She refused to see what he did as harmful to her in the long run. She still had the 'juice', the energy that Vaknin sucked out of her day by day. Behind her back he talked about her as if she didn't existed. By siding with him by not confronting his lies, when he told lies about the producer of the documentary, Ian Walker, and other people, she besides being his victims, became his accomplice, to her own detriment. What it eventually comes to, Vaknin laughingly talked about his "alleged mental illness" that he admits he wanted to use to make money. It's not mental illness per se, it's lack/absence of empathy. His score on the psychopathy list was 18, more than most criminals get. And psychopaths like him are far more dangerous to society as a whole than violent criminals. He's an example of a tormentor of the worst kind that drains and destroys people's lives. He is not human. The final episode of the documentary when Vaknin explains his "up and down" technique is astonishing and shocking to watch. Many psychopaths won't openly talk about what they do, they try to hide it. And here, it was in full view. The evil the psychopaths like him are!
The child abusers/molesters, 'pedophiles', sadists are protected by the system. The system designed by psychopaths in power, who are the abusers (not necessarily sexual offenders, although I might suspect many of them are), rapists, 'pedophiles', sadists. I's up do adults to teach children that what's had been taught for many generation before as in "there is good in everybody' is a big lie! Monsters are not only the characters in fairy tales. They live and walk among us. The predators, wolves in sheep's clothing. And it's a responsibility of adults to watch over their children, to talk to them and really listen to what they're saying, to be involved in their lives, to know what's really happening when they at school, at friend's house or any other social places. And most importantly, at home.
Thank you all once again. And many thanks to Anna Salter for her work!
Listened to this today. Thanks for another great show and really great guest - Dr. Anna Salter!
Interesting comment Mariama about children being able to recognize psychopaths and "other sundry perverts" (my words). My sister mentioned in a recent conversation that when my brother came to visit with his family, our niece, when she was only 3 or 4, would not go near the pedophile who molested my sisters and I, nor would she go near my other brother who certainly fits the psychopathic profile, a wife-beater/abuser at the very least. What comes to mind is Clarissa-Pinkola-Estes talking about how women have lost their instinctive nature, ability to recognize the predator. We lose it as children. And not just women. Just a thought I had.
