Keystone 2022

1. PHOTOGRAPHY BY KOREAN MILITARY OFFICER

4. PHOTOGRAPHY BY THE KOREAN MILITARY

2. PHOTOGRAPHY BY INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE, 'THE PICTURE POST'

3. THE B29 MASS BOMBING REQUESTED BY GENERAL MACARTHUR, 16TH AUGUST 1950

5. PHOTOGRAPHY BY M. DESFOR

6. THE AMERICAN ARMY TAKING KOREANS AS PRISONERS OF WAR

7. STUDENTS FROM EHWA WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY SINGING FOR BOTH THE SOUTH KOREAN AND AMERICAN ARMY GENERALS

9. CHILDREN AT THE 'HAPPY MOUNTAIN', SINGING FOR GENRAL MCKEON'S RETURN

8. WOMEN HAVING STI SCREENINGS WITH A DOCTOR

The definition of a serial killer is "a person who kills more than one victim in more than one location in a very short period of time". Therefore, serial killers are individuals that for some would seem to be the most sinister and grotesque criminals, however, why is it the case that so many take a fascination towards these mass murderers? In October 20221 there was the discovery of the infamous Zodiac Killer, who is believed to be a man called Gary Francis Poste, that terrorised the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 1960s, taunting the police with threatening letters. Overall, there is a distinct underlying theme of immense fascination in our society with serial killers like the zodiac killer, whether this is from the mass amounts of documentaries produced such as “Abducted in plain sight” or books like “American Predator”by Maureen Callahan. This immense fascination can stem from society gorging on the grisly murders that take place, and the wonder behind the planning of the murders through the evil perspective.

To see the perspective of murder and killing through the eyes of a serial killer there must first be the understanding of the motive. There are 4 motives that a serial killer can obtain, which are visionary, missionoriented, hedonistic, and power of control, normally it is evident that these motives overlap. A visionary serial killer suffers from psychotic breaks from reality, and ultimately, they believe that they are another person. In most cases, these serial killers believe that they are compelled by entities such as the Devil or God. For instance, Herbert Mullin, who killed 13 people from 1972-1973 in California believed that the only way to prevent another earthquake from destroying California was through his murders.

Mission-Oriented killers justify their acts as “ridding the world.” Normally these individuals would prey upon the homeless, homosexuals, prostitutes etc. Generally, these people truly believe that they are changing a societal ill through their killings.

Furthermore, hedonistic killers seek thrills and derive pleasure from killing. These elements of pleasure can be split into three categories, one of the factors is lust, which portrays sex as its primary motive. Other killers seek an element of thrill generally through striking pain and terror into their victims. Lastly, some simply aspire for comfort in their killings, whether this is a material gain or a comfortable lifestyle. Ultimately, the last motive for a serial killer is the aspect of the power of control, these killers want to gain and exert power over their victims. This motive often stems from the behavioural element of abuse as a child and reflects into their later life when they are more able to exert the power of control more easily.

Moreover, most of these serial killers that obtain this motive are classified as psychopaths, due to their meticulous planning. A prime example of this power and control motive would be Denis Rader, better known as “Bind, Torture, Kill”. BTK murdered at least 10 people in Wichita, Kansas over 20 years. The prolonged torture and killing that BTK performed were the only means to sustain his need for power and control. Thus, by breaking down the different specific types of serial killers it is easier to see a clearer perspective of these villainous criminals, and why and how they would plan their murders in the first place.

In order to plan out a murder from a serial killer’s perspective, there must be an understanding of how serial killers murder their victims.

There is no doubt that all serial killers have a method of operation, also known as modus operandi, consisting of techniques, habits, and peculiarities in the killer's behaviour. Planning a murder takes an immense amount of time, especially if there are multiple over a short period of time. Many serial killers focus on how they are going to specifically kill their victims.

For example, in 1990, after a 12-year killing career, Andrei Chikatilo was arrested and convicted of killing more than 50 young people in the Soviet Union. Chikatilo was an individual that took his killing to a whole new horrific level. The killer often mutilated his victims, gouged their eyes out, believing they contained a snapshot of the last thing they saw, eviscerated their stomachs, chewed off their noses, and even cut out tongues and genitals. In some cases, his bizarre and sadistic methods of killing included dancing naked around his victims and howling like an animal. It is clear that from Chikatilo's case serial killers go to extreme lengths to perform their murders. When planning on how to kill their victims many would think that these malicious individuals would leave no trace to continue their massacre of terror for as long as possible. However, it is clear from the primal mention of the Zodiac Killer, that many mass murderers love to leave some sort of signature mark in order to taunt investigators. This is in order to taunt both the community and the investigators and almost gives them a celebrity-like presence, as they can be spotted easily through apurposely left item. For example, between 1988-2003 in New Jersey, Charles Cullen, or the “Angel of Death” killed an estimated 300 patients at St. Barnabas Medical Centre in Livingston.

Cullen’s terrifying signature was to tamper with the IV bags to administer fatal overdoses of medications, generally, he would target older victims over the age of 60. A continuous theme in how serial killers murder their victims is the element of reliving their murders or making them as long-lasting as possible. One of the most famous serial killers of all time, Jeffrey Dahmer, chose this method in order to verbalise his traumatic childhood through a method of killing. Dahmer made sure that his killings were drawn out usually by torture and strangulation.

Ultimately, the entire process aroused Dahmer as he was able to slowly induce more pain, and therefore more time, into his victims. Thus, by acknowledging how a serial killer murders their victims we can depict the complexity in how they carry out their murders in a pleasurable fashion.

The aftermath of the killing is also highly significant when recognising how to prepare a murder from this evil perspective. The serial killers that leave no trace of evidence that links back and therefore have a more mechanical and clean aspect about them are able to continue killing for a much longer period. The lack of technology in DNA analysis in the late 1900s and early 2000s meant that serial killers could have a long run before being caught. This is one of the reasons why there was an increase in serial killers during the 80s such as Larry Eyler and Richard Ramirez. So, if a serial killer in the modern era were to hide their victims what would be the best mode of operation? Israel Keyes was an individual unlike the majority of seria l killers, this is because not only did

Keyes not have a victim profile, but also his killings were far from home, and he would never kill in the same area twice. Moving from site to site for his wicked murders he kept his phone off and paid for everything in cash in order not to be traced. By disposing of his victims inmultiple different states, like Ted Bundy, who was a serial killer that Keyes looked up to, he was able to run a killing spree from 1988-2012.

Moreover, there is also the important element of organised disposal to unfold. Although at face value the aspect of serial killers disposing of bodies in a close radius would surely expose their obvious murders more quickly this was not the case for many, including John Wayne Gacy.

John Wayne Gacy is a very well-known killer due to his disguise as ‘Pogo the Clown’ to many, and also because of his ability to hide 29 bodies in his own home. Gacy was caught in 1994, after decades of killing, when investigators issued a house search and sensed a disgusting, humid stench coming from a crawl space. After a long period of surveillance, investigators discovered several trenches filled with human remains in the crawl space beneath his house. Although, the idea of ritual is sacred to some motives when conducting killings, there is an element of not wanting to be caught and not having an infamous presence, as I have mentioned before, during their murder spree in order for them to commit again.

In conclusion, planning a murder from a serial killer’s perspective is a factor that involves great attention to detail. There must also be an understanding of ritual and motive, this is because once the motive is clear behind the serial killer it is easy to then predict the sort of killing, they will commit. Moreover, the activity of the killing itself is obviously essential to the serial killer, as the whole purpose is to bring them some sort of desire whether this be the element of power or the thrill of it all.

As a society we will never truly understand how to tap into the minds of these devilish individuals.

ation by Annabel K Illustr elle y, U 6

As an aspiring avvocato currently drinking an affogato, I am constantly pondering this question and the book that posed it to me. Allan Hutchinson’s acclaimed book truly made me think about the conclusion that necessity is not a defence to murder and this is what makes this case so renowned.

Let me start by setting the scene. It’s 1884. It’s freezing cold (I’m not talking about Mr Fuller opening the windows in the middle of winter cold. I’m talking Titanic cold). The wind is blowing easterly, (I haven’t got a clue of the wind direction 137 years ago, but bear with me here) your face controlled by the gusts and you are on your way from Sydney (the place I call home) to Southampton. You are aboard the Mignonette (not the sauce) with your 4 other crewmen enjoying your cup of tea (this actually did happen). All of a sudden (*gasp*) a great big storm blows you off your boat into tiny lifeboat without any supplies.

Here is where you start saying oh no! Looking around there are 4 other men stranded: Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Richard Parker and Edmund Brooks. You’re stranded and hungry as it’s been 7 days (keep up with me as we’re time travelling here) without food or drink (turtles and a can of turnips sound appetising now). Desperate and starving you resort to drinking your urine (desperate times call for desperate measures) and trying to collect rainwater. Did you know that if you drink seawater you die quicker than thirst? (deceiving right?!?) That is exactly what 17 year old Richard Parker did. With him falling ill and the other 3 men starving beyond return, on day 20 they pierced his jugular, ate his flesh and drank his blood (the real life Dracula before Dracula was a thing). Four days later they were rescued.

Now, would you have eaten a meager Richard Parker? I bet you’re sitting there shaking your head so violently and cursing me for having ever asked such a question. But really think about this: You are stranded at sea for 20 long days, with your body eating itself from the inside out (you can ask Mr Mallard to confirm or deny this fact as yet again, I haven’t got a clue) and common sense was out the window 19 days ago. Are you really telling me that you’d eat a steak for pleasure but not consider eating him for survival? (I’m sorry to all the vegetarians and vegans reading this. I hope you’re enjoying your kale salad). I’m not saying I would, but are you saying you wouldn’t. None of us really know until we are in that position but the plea of necessity as a defence is what makes this case so unique. So I will leave you pondering a question of my own: at what point do you value your life above someone else’s and look at the world with such disparity, life or death, them or me?

At this point, it is useful to first dispel a misunderstanding on the exceptions to self-defence.

Critics have invariably pointed to the fact that Rittenhouse had travelled 20 miles to Kenosha that night with a deadly weapon. One can certainly challenge the wisdom of that. Yet foolishness does not necessarily nullify a person’s legal right. As section 939.48(2)(a) further stipulates, a person is deprived of his privilege of self-defence when he ‘engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him’. Hence, the mere presence of Rittenhouse displaying a weapon does not inherently prevent him from claiming self-defence, when Wisconsin law allows firearms to be visibly carried.

The prosecution must therefore disprove the possibility that Rittenhouse’s actions were reasonable that night. In doing this, it is imperative for us to focus on the factual circumstances of that night.

From the resources available, Rittenhouse was clearly in a chaotic scene that night, surrounded by different actors with different motivations. Prior to the shooting, it was revealed that Rittenhouse was chased after by a man (Joseph Rosenbaum), who threw a plastic bag with his belongings at him. After a gunshot was fired by a bystander, Rosenbaum lunged toward Rittenhouse, and the latter fired four times at him.

Rittenhouse soon fled the scene and, irresponsibly as a gun owner, rushed towards the street.

Naturally, he was pursued by a crowd intending to subdue and unarm him. Having been attacked by Anthony Huber and his skateboard, Rittenhouse fired shots towards Huber and killed him. The situation was further complicated when Rittenhouse shot and injured first aider Gaige Grosskreutz, who had drawn his pistol on Rittenhouse.

In light of the above circumstances, numerous people have expressed their opinions as to whether Rittenhouse was reasonably engaging in self-defence. Regardless, one has to remember that it is for the prosecution to prove Rittenhouse’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The proverbial ‘reasonable doubt’ has a specific meaning in the criminal law. As the Canadian Supreme Court once observed, the expression does not refer to ‘an imaginary or frivolous doubt, nor is it based upon sympathy or prejudice’. Instead, it is ‘based on reason and common sense which must logically be derived from the evidence or absence of evidence’. Whilst this legal test does not involve absolute certainty, proof that the accused is probably guilty is far from sufficient.

As Naomi has demonstrated in her retelling of Dudley and Stephens, the decision to value your own life above someone else’s is an extraordinary step for anyone to take. This requires the jury to exercise a degree of empathy (not sympathy) when determining Rittenhouse’s guilt. In particular, one has to bear in mind that a reasonable judgment may be a mistaken one.

Necessarily so, since if Rittenhouse was in a situation where his own life was threatened, he cannot be expected to make a flawless decision.

In this sense, it is not so unreasonable for the jury, after looking at the evidence presented, to conclude that Rittenhouse may have reasonably believed he had exhausted every other means to escape from danger. They are obliged to do so if, in their view, the prosecution has failed to fulfil its burden of proof.

Equally, as one legal analyst pointed out, those who have hailed Rittenhouse as heroic should remember that had Rittenhouse been killed by others, it is entirely possible for them to have done so out of ‘self-defence’ in mistaking him as an active shooter. Likewise, the presumption of innocence (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) does not suggest Rittenhouse has no moral responsibility over the tragedy occurred.

When one examines the factual circumstances and the relevant legal principles, then, it is clear that the trial is anything but an open and shut case. Nor can one possibly suggest the verdict ‘is proof that it is reasonable to believe that the fear of Black people can absolve a white person of any crime’, as one commentator in a leading newspaper has put it. Not least because both Rittenhouse and those who have been shot by him are all white.

I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the court can, and should, somehow generalise the Rittenhouse case. It is not a proper basis for conviction to ignore the individual culpability of the defendant, and instead impose the guilt of others on him. I need not point out how dangerous the concept of collective punishment is. That is not to say that there are no wider social issues that need to be addressed. Of course there are. But those who are rightly concerned with these problems must squarely confront them. To thrust that responsibility on a criminal court is simply absurd.

In the end of the Rittenhouse trial, there are no heroes or villains, but a series of unfortunate events, interwoven together by human follies and errors. As America struggles to untangle itself from a web that stretches back to the misdeeds from the country’s genesis, the least we can do now is to avoid igniting the entire structure with flame. Far from freeing the victims trapped within it, this simply defeats the purpose of saving the country, now very much on the brink of self-destruction. Making ill-informed attacks and distorting the real issues underlying the Rittenhouse trial will do just that.

Note: This article is written with the helpful summary and analysis of the case by The New York Times and legal commentator Devin Stone (LegalEagle). I hope any fault or inadequacy in this short case commentary can be excused.

The New York Times, ‘A Fatal Night in Kenosha: How the Rittenhouse Shootings Unfolded | Visual Investigations’ (28 October 2021) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpTW2AJE9MQ> accessed 20 November 2021 LegalEagle,

‘Kyle

Rittenhouse:

Murder

or

Self-Defense?’

(23

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI> accessed 26 November 2021

Nov

2021)