I don't want to go on about psychopath stuff but thought to note...
Not all psychopaths are serial killers or even killers. Many are CEOs of corporations and/or high functioning people in society who never kill in their life! Makes one wonder who their friends and coworkers are lol... Not funny really but a tad freaky.
Yup, most sociopaths and psychopaths aren't actually dangerous killers, and psychopathic traits can actually be helpful in certain careers.
Not all psychopaths are criminals – some psychopathic traits are actually linked to success
Yes and that's where it gets interesting in terms of behavioral analysis. Because after an extensive police investigation into their backgrounds, Kam and Bryer were found to not have had any history of violent or criminal actions before this. Of course it's possible they had previous violent or criminal actions that they got away with, but given how completely sloppy they were in everything they did, I would be surprised to learn that they actually ever got away with anything. There didn't seem to be a pattern of escalating actions prior to this. As far as we know, they were more or less "pro-social" for 19 years. Some confluence of factors caused a sudden, abrupt change into brutal violence.
So that raises the question of: what went wrong? What factors cause someone to go from pro-social to antisocial? What are the warning signs of that happening? And what interventions can be used to make sure that someone stays on a pro-social path?
I've read up a lot on that kind of thing in the past two months, and it seems that researchers are coming up with some interesting theories and interventions, some of which have promising results.
And I have to say I now feel vindicated vs those who have been claiming they were just a couple of basically nice boys who made a few mistakes. Sorry, I just had to say that because I found those ongoing claims to be so incredibly frustrating.
SBM
Well I think the main thing that threw people off in this case was that the killings stopped. In the majority of killing sprees, that doesn't happen. The killers continue to commit murders at a fairly consistent rate and even escalate, until they die or are captured. It's actually very unusual that they stopped at two murder scenes.
They were driving on remote roads for days after that...it seems difficult to believe they couldn't have found additional victims. But the speed at which they crossed the country indicated they probably weren't even looking for victims at that point. Also, their murders were committed at night, but after they escaped it seemed like all of the sightings of them were during the day. So it would be reasonable for anyone to assume that they were in "escape mode" at that point.
I don't think we will ever know for sure whether they actually intended to go back and kill more people, or were already in "suicide mode" and they just said that to be dramatic and shocking for more notoriety. And if so, whether going back to kill more people was their plan all along, or if they were done with killing initially and changed their minds. As people have noted, they probably actually weren't physically trapped by the terrain and could have gone back if they wanted to.
Another thing that threw people off was that Professor Dyck's murder was charged as second-degree. Now that we know more of the details, it seems baffling to me that it was ever charged that way.
And another thing that indicated it wasn't planned, was their lack of social media presence. Now that we know there was an element of notoriety, it seems even weirder that they didn't have much of an online presence at all, let alone any "Easter eggs" indicating what they were going to do. To me that indicates how abrupt this whole thing was.
It wasn't just people on here that were thrown off, though. Even this
criminology professor was interviewed for an article during the manhunt, and he said he thought Lucas and Chynna's murders were a robbery gone wrong, and then Professor Dyck was killed to steal his car and escape. And the main reason why he thought this was because there was no violence after the 19th.
Were B.C. killings planned in advance? Criminologist has doubts
I also remember reading somewhere that even Lucas' dad -- a top police officer -- thought it was a robbery gone wrong at first.
So that's kind of how I formed my initial opinion. Especially because it seemed that most people who were commenting on this case who had backgrounds in criminology, or experience working with young offenders, had the same kind of idea about this case as that article I posted above.
It was only after the detail about multiple videos came out that I was immediately like "Basement Tapes!" and after that I started thinking more and more that it was planned. Plus I have this whole theory of what factors pushed them from non-violence into violence, and I realized my theory wouldn't really work that well unless it was planned.
It's absolutely clear to me that Bryer was a complete lunatic and the ideological leader. Kam may have been the logistical leader, who decided what they were going to do next, but it was Bryer who had the deviant fantasies and somehow got Kam on board.
The one thing that puzzles me is how Bryer was able to convince Kam to commit suicide. He must have had a very persuasive argument, because I doubt Kam was suicidal.
I disagree. I think they were both equally into this thing. I think Kam was better at hiding his weird beliefs and fantasies from people he knew. But I think both of them had similar thought processes, and 100% wholeheartedly believed they were in some kind of militia of two against the world.
And I think both of them were suicidal, probably for years leading up to this, and this was always intended as a suicide mission -- basically "see how far we can get and then end it." The suicides actually seem like THE most planned part of the entire thing, with all these ritualistic actions they took to prepare, and the plan of Kam shooting Bryer (I imagine that was a fantasy Bryer had for a long time, of Kam being the one to kill him, and that just shows how codependent they were.)
Also notice, the spot where they killed themselves. I can't for the life of me believe they were ever trapped there or couldn't get back up the slope. The bottom of those cliff faces, absolutely, they would have been trapped. But those toppled trees falling down into the river where the bank collapsed would have made for fairly easy climbing back up to the woods. They chose this spot when they were ready.
SBM -- agreed. I doubt they actually intended to go back and kill more people for that reason. I think they probably just said that to be dramatic and shocking and to express anger. Because a) it doesn't seem like they made much of an effort to try to go back, b) they would have been delusional if they actually thought it was feasible to go back and do that, and c) I think they had a very, very specific vision of how they wanted their suicides to play out, and I don't think they would have risked not having that come to fruition.
And when that does happen it becomes a big question on what comes first: the desire to act in these ways, which the video game provides an outlet for? Or the video game, which develops a desire to do these things? That's a contentious issue.
Personally, I find these incredibly violent games just plain unsettling. But same with the TV show "Game of Thrones." I just don't understand how folks can enjoy all that violence.
SBM
I would love to see more research done on this topic. And agreed on Game of Thrones.