I have posted about both topics prior so apologies for rehashing old stuff. Regarding Ted Bundy, my understanding is that he was from anything but a normal family; he was born an illegitimate child to a young mother who had him in a women's refuge, then returned to her family home where Ted was raised as her brother rather than son by his grandparents. His grandfather was supposedly very abusive in the household, so Ted would have been exposed to the primary male figure being violent, controlling and abusive towards the females in the household, which would have created a template for his understanding of power relationships and male dominance. He would have also experienced childhood trauma being exposed to family domestic violence, which significantly affects brain development and the ability to emotionally self-regulate. Antisocial behaviours can come about from dysregulated childhoods with ruptured or insecure primary care-giver attachments, initially it might be because they are 'acting out' to express emotional distress and becomes a more habitual behavioural pattern to seek attention. The impaired brain development, and lack of secure attachment can result in people developing poor levels of interpersonal empathy, but they also have higher tolerances for excitement and are more likely to be impulsive and seek out pleasure sensation through risk behaviours, so it's not hard to see how this lays the path to 'psychopathy'. On top of this apparently Ted 'knew something was not right' in his family, experienced a profound identity crisis, and came to develop a deep hated of his mother as he learned she had 'abandoned him'. It was also said that he had a huge chip on his shoulder about the family's social position and was a narcissistic striver from a young age. So, we're talking about a kid who was exposed to a most unfortunate upbringing and would have had a significantly messed up emotional development.
When he did that final death-row interview he basically abdicated all personal responsibility and placed it on 'hardcore *advertiser censored*', acting like a good concerned citizen, just another glib emotionless ploy from a profoundly psychologically damaged man with no grounding moral centre. Nonetheless, he was right about the effects of *advertiser censored*. We now know that sexual stimuli releases large amounts of dopamine into the brain along with other neurochemicals, and that *advertiser censored* is effectively mainlining sexual stimuli at levels far beyond we're naturally evolved for. After a while, the brain fatigues and doesn't create the same level of dopamine so a person often needs to seek out new and stronger material to achieve the same levels of excitement and stimulation. I would say that there are a significant number of men who have at least somewhat of a dependency or ongoing issue with *advertiser censored*, particularly because it is so readily available on the internet. Now, whether or not people have a 'moral' issue with *advertiser censored* is up to the user to decide, but regardless *advertiser censored* and the kinds of behaviours seen in it are normalised in users minds, and it is not uncommon for people to have 'cognitive distortions' about sexual relationships, expectations and performance. This occurs even in the minds of psychologically healthy people, but you can imagine the effect it might have when regularly consumed by someone with high sensation seeking tendencies towards risk behaviours and a poor sense of empathy for others where their needs are placed above the needs of others. So *advertiser censored* on its own does not an offender make, but it can be a contributing factor to an individual significantly predisposed to antisocial behaviour through childhood developmental issues.
I would feel very confident in speculating that the accused has a history of *advertiser censored* use. I believe that sexual excitement would have been his largest preoccupation at different stages of his life depending on the circumstances and that he would likely have been driving around fantasising about all manner of things, particularly all sorts of possibilities for himself, fuelled and justified by various cognitive distortions and beliefs. I suspect he is very private with this though, and while might have been distressed about a breakup with EE, that he also might have felt quite liberated to have space to himself to use as he pleased, which would have coincided with increased *advertiser censored* use. I also feel very confident that he would have continued to use *advertiser censored*, perhaps very extreme content only found on the dark web. I think he would have had an area in the house, spare bedroom perhaps, set up to be quite private for both gaming and other nocturnal activities, and that he would have been very protective and intimidating about this space. I think CGE would have found this very unusual and although frightened, possibly explored his computer setup while he was not there. This is all speculation, but I would bet that knowing what we've just said about neural wiring around pleasure seeking behaviours, that any WAPOL psych would have taken one look at a 48 y.o. man smack bang in the target offender age range with a highly unattended to yard but a private interest in gaming and computers and found it at least rather compelling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
