Retired Criminal Investigator. Adjunct Professor. True Crime author. Former semi-pro hockey player. Boston-born Steve Giannangelo has led an interesting life. Having spent 20 years working in law enforcement for the State of Illinois (and with time served on the state police and FBI’s Joint Terrorism task forces), Steve now teaches Serial Murder and the Psychology of the Offender at the University of Illinois Springfield. His books ‘The Psychopathology of Serial Murder: A Theory of Violence’ (1996), ‘Real-Life Monsters: A Psychological Analysis of the Serial Murderer’ (2012) and ‘Monsters in the Mirror: Reflections on the Study of Serial Murder’ (2022) are to be followed by the upcoming ‘Irresistible Impulses: Defending the Insanity of Serial Murder’ (Spring 2025) – and when he’s not working or hanging out with his two cats, you can catch him on the true crime conference circuit.
Having long held a “soft spot” for the case (he dedicates a class each semester to ‘Dahmer Night’ and contributed a chapter and Dahmer-penned letters, now in his personal possession, to John Borowski’s ‘Dahmer’s Confession’), Steve was chronologically at ground-zero when Jeffrey Dahmer’s story broke in 1991 and still finds it as “riveting as the day [he] saw those images of the hazmat-clad guys rolling the blue vat down the stairs.”
I caught up with Steve to discuss Jeff’s psychology and psychiatrists, the wave of Evan-Peters-induced Netflix hype, collecting ‘murderabilia’ – and trying to send contraband to an incarcerated Dahmer.
Hey, Steve! Thanks so much for agreeing to talk to me. For starters, tell us a bit about your background and how your particular interest in the Dahmer case came about.
Hi, Sophie! Always happy to talk about serial killers, Jeffrey Dahmer and all sorts of related pleasantries!
Adding to my intro: I have a Masters Degree in Forensic Psychology, with a strong emphasis on serial and atypical murder. When I was completing this degree, the Dahmer case was still fresh in people’s minds. I wanted to do my thesis on a fresh application of a theory of violence – an abnormal psychology view on a serial killer synthesis and development. I started looking at Dahmer in-depth, as well as other cases like Arthur Shawcross, Andrei Chikatilo and Ed Kemper. But Dahmer was always foremost on my mind and the main target of study.
During my studies, a personal contact of mine at the Milwaukee Police Department offered a copy of Dahmer’s confession along with a slate of graphic Polaroids from the crime scene. By now, most Dahmer researchers have seen a lot of this material, but in 1992 during the Dahmer trial, such material was gold and unheard-of. It was sent to me by fax from the MPD and I guarded these pieces as a gatekeeper for about 30 years. They were my personal tangible connection to the Jeffrey Dahmer case that was never broken.
As someone with a background in criminal psychology, is there any psychiatrist with whom you particularly agree in regards to their analysis of Dahmer?
It’s fair to say that I most agree with Park Dietz’s assessment. I understand that I could be lumped with Dietz as someone that might have a propensity to agree with the prosecution side more often, but I felt his analysis made the most sense to me and that Dahmer did have a mental disease, but showed too much control and avoidance of capture to be considered legally insane and unable to control his impulses.
I also agree strongly with Dietz that to allow the supposition that sexually disordered individuals at the level of Dahmer are, per se, unable to conform to the requirements of the law, means it’s then open season for every sex offender alive.
Conversely, is there anyone who you think – from your own personal perspective – was way off-the-mark there?
I don’t think any of the professionals that were involved in the case could be criticised as “way off the mark.” At the time, I didn’t agree with Dr. Wahlstrom’s conclusion that Jeffrey suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder… I didn’t think the hallmarks of that diagnosis, particularly in the time frame (we were using the DSM-III1, I believe), were apparent enough (i.e. uncontrolled, inappropriate anger; unstable and intense interpersonal relationships; self harm). I understand why he landed there, particularly when considering “frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment” and possibly issues with self-identity, but I have trouble getting there for this diagnosis.
I also had trouble seeing evidence of a psychotic disorder. But the majority of the results seemed reasonable, defendable and understandable, even if I personally didn’t agree with all of them.
The ‘Nature vs. Nurture’ debate reigns large within discussions about violent offenders, particularly serial killers. Do you think Dahmer could be seen as a natural born killer, a product of circumstances, a combination of the two – or even some kind of entirely different entity?
– Steve reminiscing about July 1991
My entire thesis research and my first two books dealt with my belief in a combination of forces, in varying applications per case, in the development of most serial murderers. It’s a diathesis-stress theory2, which combines a biological predisposition with environmental stressors. I’ve always felt Jeffrey Dahmer was a classic example of this.
It’s not a secret that Dahmer’s mother was on many different medications when pregnant with Jeffrey. This prenatal condition is hard to ignore in this case. When you combine the pathological sexual deviance that was fused to his off-the-charts libido, and the potential of the effects of biology and genetics on his impulse control, it sounds like a combination for disaster. That’s not even adding in the devastating reaction he developed to the idea of being left alone – and the alcohol abuse as a result of self-medication.
You tried to contact Jeff while he was in prison. Could you tell us about that?
As an earnest (but not entirely informed) grad student, I tried to arrange a visit / meeting where we could discuss anything he decided was worthy for inclusion in my thesis. I tried to pave the way by providing a carefully prepared questionnaire that might give him some things to think about, and which might spark some interest, and that we could develop in-person. Unfortunately, I believed that the best route to receiving a reply would be to provide a self-addressed stamped envelope for his convenience. I had no idea that a stamp is considered “contraband” and was often used for transmitting drugs like LSD! So CCI chose to throw away my letter and questionnaire and send me a “Notice of Non-Delivery of Mail” – citing that the “item contains contraband.” An ominous description for my innocuous inclusion.
It has always amused me that I once was admonished for sending contraband to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. I guess I never learned, because about 18 years later – when I sent a copy of my first book to a killer I would soon visit while preparing to write a second book – it was also thrown away as being “too inflammatory” for an offender such as this to read.
To think what might’ve been! On the subject of letters from prison, you also own a number of items related to Dahmer and his case. What do you think the appeal of collecting ‘murderabilia’3 is? And do you have any particular favourites in relation to your Dahmer pieces?
Includes handwritten notes by Lionel Dahmer; VHS tapes of the trial, directly recorded from Court TV ’92; an original graduation photo depicting Jeff and Lionel – and the controversial ‘Dahmer Peek-A-Boo Doll’ (complete with plastic ‘victim’ inside ‘Dahmer’s’ tummy)
I do have a number of murderabilia pieces that I’ve collected over the years. I think in general, like most collectibles, such items serve as a way for people to own a piece of history. To possess an artefact that represents a subject or a case they find interesting.
In my particular case, I carry this a bit further. My first formal purchase of a piece of murderabilia was my ‘Pogo the Clown’ painting by John Wayne Gacy. I used this item to spark interest and conversation in my classroom and it was a spectacular hit from the first night. We talk about psychology, how art can tell us things about mental illness, debate Son of Sam laws4 or censorship… The topics are endless. I have since brought in – or photographed and presented – many items that I own (and some that I don’t), such as letters for analysis. And it’s been a massive plus in adding to my class sessions.
Particular favourites? Obviously the materials I received from Milwaukee PD are my most personally prized, but I have a few regarding Dahmer. I am partial to the 1977 school yearbook I have of his. I also have a couple of greeting cards he sent to a personal pen pal that include interesting hand-written messages, even down to the child-like way he addressed an envelope. And recently I’ve acquired a few personal items from Lionel Dahmer’s home. My favourites there include an original colour print of a photo of Lionel and Jeff on his graduation day (weeks before his first murder), as well as Lionel’s copy of the original autopsy report cover sheet for Jeffrey’s murder, stamped for official filing and which includes some sobering details.
Are there any particular kinds of ‘murderabilia’ items that you personally wouldn’t touch, or which you think shouldn’t be sold?
I don’t have an opinion about any items that “shouldn’t be sold.” I really don’t believe in any sort of censorship, much less white-washing or trying to erase history. However, from a purely personal perspective, I don’t have interest in terrorist-related items, nor do I have any interest in anything related to the harm of police officers. Again, I make no moral or value judgements here, it’s just that as a former law enforcement officer these items hold no appeal for me.
Going back to his psychology, one of the debates we see quite a bit is the idea that Jeff may have been on the autism spectrum. There are interesting arguments on both sides – with some viewing particular traits as evidence of this, while others see certain idiosyncrasies as being linked to his other diagnoses or simply the stunted nature of a man capable of murdering 17 men as a means of control. Do you think there’s any merit to Dahmer and the autism theory?
This discussion about autism frankly surprises me in its staying power. A lot of people seemed to have bought into the idea that Jeffrey was autistic, seemingly proven by his remarkably flat affect and monotone way of speaking. I’m going to say, personally, I just don’t see it. When I think of a man so glib and quick on his feet as to talk two street cops into believing a naked, bleeding boy running away from him is just an under-the-influence lover with whom he just had a spat… Well, it doesn’t sound autistic to me. I don’t think anyone who’s ever interviewed him, too, would doubt his capacity to communicate. I also don’t see a problem in social interactions.
His decision not to wear his glasses in the courtroom because he didn’t want to see the victims’ families expressions is also telling. He was afraid of their feelings – which is something an autistic person is supposedly incapable of understanding and empathising with others’ emotions and related cues.
Other signs like repetitive behaviours, sensory avoidance, motor skill limitations, problems with planning and completing skills… He doesn’t seem like he fits to me.
Netflix and the wave of ‘Dahmermania’ in 2022 introduced Dahmer’s case to a wide audience of people who might not have heard of him before. We can see from social media (before such accounts are swiftly taken down by Zuckerberg and co.) that there’s an even bigger – almost cult-like – ‘fanbase’ surrounding him these days as a result. What is it about Dahmer that you think has captured and held people’s attention this way?
It’s a great question. The fact is, ‘Dahmermania’ came along not that long after another media wave resulted from Zac Efron’s depiction of Ted Bundy in Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil & Vile (2019). Oh, we heard the usual complaints about the glamorisation and romanticisation of a serial killer who happened to be attractive and, along with it, a new slew of Bundy groupies, it seemed. But even that was nothing compared to the massive reaction to the Dahmer series. Was it because Evan Peters was such a good actor? The writing was so good? That people weren’t put off by the number of inaccuracies and depictions that were at the least, false and at worse, libellous?
My guess is that Dahmer’s story is simply too interesting to pass up. The number of odd and quirky and fascinating details of the case are as long as your arm. And the amount of amorously devoted females for the, undeniably, very gay Dahmer are hard to even quantify. The story is simply made for TV and media, and the fact is he might be the most media-ready serial killer story in our recent history.
And the fact that his story was a supernova… He exploded on the scene with Tracy Edwards in July 1991, and he was brutally, horribly murdered in November 1994 – making a story that was endlessly filled with fascination over in a flash. He didn’t get old and fat over decades in prison. He’s forever the 34 year-old face in the orange jumpsuit. And there hasn’t been another serial killer media star like him since.
This is still the most recent high profile serial killer case that’s captured people’s imaginations. This is the one everyone remembers.
You mention the inaccuracies within Netflix’s Dahmer. Were there any such discrepancies that you found particularly note-worthy or frustrating to someone who has been studying the case for as long as you have?
There were a few. As a former law enforcement officer, I felt like some of the actions portrayed by police were at the very least, unsubstantiated (and at worst, flat-out lies) which were unnecessary and distracting from the series. Which was otherwise done fairly well, for the most part. The accusation that cops were making harassing phone calls, for example, is borderline slander.
In addition, I do understand that creative licence allows for occasionally combining characters or events for flow and expedience, but aspects of the Netflix-version of Glenda Cleveland (in part a composite of Dahmer’s real-life neighbour, Pamela Bass, as well as other people – real and fictitious) were too much. The recounting of hearing sounds and smells, etc. through a common vent when she didn’t even live in that building, and the idea of Dahmer offering sliced people sandwiches, just went over the line in my opinion.
Dahmer himself was vocal about his disdain towards the media’s fascination with him. “I don’t think there’s any story left to tell anymore,” he said, two years after his arrest. “It’s been told over and over again. There’s no story left.” So, regardless of how fascinating it is, do you think there’s anything more to add to the Dahmer-narrative at this point?
Over the years it’s been said that, “do we really need another Bundy show? Another Gacy movie?” But the fact is many times it’s been proven, “yes, we do” – with better technology, new talent, additional information and fresh interest. The Dahmer story is so uniquely studded with fascinating facts, twists, details, personalities, crime history and psychological depth that I believe the story can continue to spellbind people.
Personally, the new looks on already-told stories that have been most attractive to me are when they include actual new information or material. Now, I’m not talking about the phoney “Is H.H. Holmes Jack the Ripper?” artificial foolishness, but legitimate material – like some of the new recordings of Lionel Dahmer that were brought out in the latest Fox series. More recent shows that I have sat down and watched about Bundy and Gacy on Netflix have included unheard tapes from interviewers that fascinate me, because firstly, its new to me and secondly, even though I feel like I know a lot about these cases – and am familiar with much of the material in all these cases – listening to their words is a different level of insight and witnessing their history.
I have no doubt there’s more raw footage or recordings we have yet to hear and I’ll be there to listen and watch when it’s available.
One of the most particularly heartbreaking, shocking and controversial aspects of the case is the murder of 14 year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone. Who, as we know, became Dahmer’s thirteenth victim immediately after police had escorted him back to Dahmer’s apartment while under the impression that they were resolving a domestic dispute. As someone who worked in law enforcement for twenty years, would you mind sharing some thoughts on how the actions of those officers were (or were not) in line with protocol of the time – and what lessons should’ve been learnt from such an incident?
The main thing to remember is the time and place of this action. These officers were patrolling a bad neighbourhood in the early 90s. They often went from call to call, location to location. They were tasked with making a call on the spot and quickly moving on. I have spoken to Milwaukee PD who worked that same time frame and they said it was not uncommon for undocumented immigrant young men who were adults, in that area, acting like they were minors. We have seen various pictures of Konerak looking pretty young and some not so young. I don’t know what he looked like that night, and I don’t know what Dahmer said, but they weren’t the first people in authority whom Jeffrey completely fooled in his life, including judges. So the story was not, in fact, unbelievable. They did go to his apartment and no, they did not search it. I’m guessing, in any other instance, if they had searched a bedroom without an official warrant they could have been accused of a civil rights violation. There’s also a lot of debate and concern around the issue of racism at the time, but cops generally hate when bystanders are appearing to interfere and they risk being baited or distracted.
This sad, tragic, horrifying moment was a case where people who want to play Monday-Morning Quarterback can easily criticise the police, given the appalling outcome. The optics were horrible in hindsight. I think both officers felt in good faith that they handled the call properly within the protocols of the day. I also feel they were punished enough by the nightmarish consequences of their failure to discover what the true story was. I wouldn’t want to live with that and I know they didn’t either. Although it doesn’t excuse some of the poor, unprofessional choices in comments made on the radio later, we can recount similar incidents in every walk of life back then.
We must learn to look harder and be more vigilant – though the fact is, every officer is today scrutinised and criticised at a level that’s not comparable to any before. If those exact circumstances arose again, the officers pushing for a more complete search of the apartment could be met with even louder complaints about civil rights.
It’s a very fine line and easy to criticise from a safe distance from participants, the system and the adjoining political atmosphere.
And finally: If you had been successful in securing an interview with Jeff – or even if he were still alive today – what question would you most like to have asked him?
Another great question. I believe I’d have approached him the same way I approached the interview with the serial killer from my 2012 book. I’d want to agree with him that we want to learn from each other, that we want to figure out how he got from point A to point B. How a normalish, average-looking kid living in Nowhere, Middle America, became possibly the most famous, notorious criminal of our times.
I’d want to determine the route of his complicated sexual pathology, his actual mental disorders. I’d want to trace the various steps of his jarring personal disappointments, even to being “sent away” after his parents’ traumatic divorce to Ohio State… to the army… to Grandma’s house… Did these cement the crushing feelings of abandonment that seemed to break him as a kid, alone in his house, destined to meet Steven Hicks?
There’s a lot I’d love to attempt to learn from and alongside Jeffrey Dahmer.
Steve’s books are available to purchase at Amazon – along with Borowski’s ‘Dahmer’s Confession: The Milwaukee Cannibal’s Arrest Statements.’
Sources:
- ‘Son of Sam Laws’ on Wikipedia
- ‘Diathesis-Stress Model’ from the APA Dictionary of Psychology
- ‘What are “Son of Sam” Laws?’ at Psychology Today
- Dahmer’s Confession: The Milwaukee Cannibal’s Arrest Statements by John Borowski (2017)
- DSM-III-R by The American Psychiatric Association (1987)
Header image: Steve in a 1998 interview with local access TV
Footnotes:
- The DSM-III criteria for Borderline Personality includes: “Marked and persistent identity disturbance as manifested by uncertainty about at least two of the following: self-image, sexual orientation, long-term goals or career choice, type of friends desired [and] preferred values.” The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition, was referred to by psychiatrists during Dahmer’s evaluations and subsequent trial ↩︎
- The diathesis-stress model refers to a psychological theory that explains the development of mental and physical disorders as a result of both biological factors / genetic predisposition and stressful life experiences. It’s also known as the vulnerability-stress model ↩︎
- ‘Murderabilia’ refers to items and collectibles directly related to murderers and their crimes. Some notable examples include paintings by ‘Killer Clown’ John Wayne Gacy; letters and drawings from Richard ‘Night Stalker’ Ramirez and – more recently auctioned at the time of writing – the front door of the home where actress Sharon Tate and four other people were murdered by members of the Manson family. Dahmer is not without his own share of ‘murderabilia’ and JD items on the current market include an array of Dahmer-penned or typed letters, childhood relics, official documents pertaining to the case and items retrieved from his prison cell. Several pairs of glasses attributed to Dahmer have also traded hands. As expected, the sale and ownership of such items has been heavily criticised over the years ↩︎
- The ‘Son of Sam Law’ refers to legislation designed to keep convicted criminals from profiting off the publicity surrounding their crimes (such as by selling their story to the press). Critics of the law argue that it violates a convicts inherent human right to freedom of speech – and risks silencing stories that could benefit public interest and criminal understanding. The enforcement of such laws is inconsistent ↩︎