On the 28th of November, 1994, Jeffrey Dahmer was beaten to death at Columbia Correctional Institution by a fellow inmate.After his killer – a previously convicted murderer and diagnosed schizophrenic – was tried and sentenced to two additional life terms1, most of Dahmer’s body was eventually cremated in September ’95. However, it would be another four months before his brain was also put to rest, following an embittered dispute between his long-divorced parents over what to do with it.
Below is an in-depth look at both sides of that debate and its implications, compiled from official case documents, press coverage and other supplementary material.
Joyce Flint – who had divorced Lionel Dahmer in ’78 – believed that donating her son’s brain to science might bring about some good in an otherwise terrible situation.
Joyce ‘Rocky’ Flint “They’re going to make a Boris Karloff movie about me fighting for the brain.”
“When I think of what Jeff did, I just stop breathing,” she said in a 1995 interview with the Milwaukee Sentinel. “I haven’t seen one speck of light with all this horror that happened to everyone. I want something useful to come from this nightmare.”
As well as learning that her son had murdered, dismembered and defiled 17 people, Joyce’s nightmare included a mental breakdown, attempted suicide, treatment for breast cancer and an onslaught of media harassment – all following Jeff’s arrest just four years prior. She’d also tried to file a wrongful death suit against Columbia Correctional Institution, believing the prison staff had “discretionary power as to who would be around Jeff” and that “something was allowed to happen to him” – but no lawyer wanted to take her case.
“Milwaukee turned my son into a demon,” she said. “I do not deny that what [he] did was horrible, [but] nobody listens. He didn’t know what he was doing.”
When the courts released his body 10 months after his murder, the rest of Jeff’s ashes had been sent to Fresno, California and Akron, Ohio – respectively divided between Joyce and Lionel. Rather than wait for their son’s brain, the parents opted to cremate the rest of his body as soon as possible to save on storage costs.
While Lionel would later spread his share behind his Seville, Ohio country home, Joyce would preserve hers in a pretty, pastel-coloured 12″ vase which Jeff had sent to her from Germany, during his time in the military. Joyce also retained a lock of his hair, and had tenderly placed a bouquet of flowers and a card inside his body bag before it had been sealed for the morgue.
Though their contact had waned over the years, Joyce had always loved her eldest son2. When the 18-year-old Jeff opted to stay in Ohio while she headed to Wisconsin following the seperation from Lionel, she was left with “tears in my eyes, my heart aching. Not because I was leaving, but because Jeff was staying behind… I just wasn’t ready to let him go.”3
His incarceration eventually brought them closer via regular phonecalls and letters. “Jeff caused so much heartache and the loss of so many people’s children,” she said, acknowledging the bittersweetness of their reconnection. “I can’t believe that now I have this relationship with Jeff that was lost.”
“I love you. Mom. It is only with the heart that one sees clearly. What is truly essential is invisible to the eye. You have great heart, my dear son. Love & Light.” – Photo of Dahmer in court, signed on the back by Joyce and sent to him in prison (via u/lumpy_country6663)
It was these prison conversations (along with the exchanges she’d had with professionals and the information read in doctors reports) which peaked Joyce’s curiosity in trying to understand what was wrong with him.
“I asked: Do you still have these urges?” she explained. “He said: “Yes, mum. I’m so glad I’m locked up… I’d be afraid of what I’d do if I weren’t.”
Joyce believed that her son would’ve wanted his brain to be studied. “Jeff always said that, if he could be of any help, he wanted to do whatever he could,” she said. “[He even] said in court that he wanted to help… Jeff is not the last serial killer we’re going to read about, [so] maybe this could [be of use].”
In his final statement, Dahmer had told the court:
“I wanted to find out just what it was that caused me to be so bad and evil. But, most of all, [attorney] Mr. Boyle and I decided that maybe there was a way for us to tell the world that if there are people out there with these disorders, maybe they can get some help before they end up hurt or hurting someone…
[The trial] was only a matter of [determining] which place I would be housed the rest of my life – not for my comfort, but for trying to study me in the hopes of helping me and learning to help others who might have problems…
I pledge to talk to doctors who might be able to find some answers.”
Other examples of Dahmer’s willingness to help examine and explain his crimes include:
Actively cooperating with police in order to identify the victims remains and “to relieve the minds of the parents.”
Dahmer told psychiatrist Dr. Ken Smail that “because I created this horror, it only makes sense that I do everything to put an end to it.”
Extract from Dahmer’s confession
Agreeing to meet with Theresa Smith – sister of his seventh victim, Eddie – in order to speak with her about her brother’s death and answer her questions. “The first thing he said when he came in is that he was sorry for killing my brother,” Theresa said of the encounter. “He didn’t even sit down before he said it.”
Giving Dr. Smail permission to use their taped interviews for teaching purposes (though Dahmer expressed annoyance when such material ended up in a commerical book)
“How can I make anyone understand that he had value?” – Joyce talking about Jeffrey after his death (1960 photo)
The absence of sadism in his murders (“the killing was just a means to an end… I didn’t enjoy doing that”) also suggests Dahmer being more open to an attempt at mitigation than most other serial killers.
“Over and over, he’d tried to remind me [that] they were never conscious,” Joyce said, referring to her son’s preferred method of drugging his victims before killing them. “In his mind – in his strange mind – he didn’t think it hurt them.”
Despite living over 2,000 miles from where Jeff died, Joyce took a proactive move to study this strange mind – writing to both coroners and criminologists in her efforts (which she described as “begging on my hands and knees”) to find a biological explanation. “I’ve located experts who feel research on Jeff’s brain could be useful,” she said – referring to psychologist and criminologist, Candice Skrapec, and reknowned neurologist, Dr. Jonathan Pincus.
An affidavit filed by Joyce’s attorney on September 12th, 1995, reads:
1/2
2/2
Excerpts from an affidavit filed by Joyce Flint, three weeks before the initial hearing regarding Jeff’s brain
Joyce’s own mental health issues had been widely documented, notably in Lionel’s book, A Father’s Story. She would have recurrent nightmares which left her screaming in her sleep; suffered from acute anxiety during her pregnancy with Jeff; had once joined a growth group for ‘bored or dissatisfied’ women; and, in 1970, had spent a month in a mental ward following a breakdown. Alcoholism also lingered in her genes – with her father often laid out in an drunken stupor or riled up, ranting and abusing his family.
“I knew I was sick or evil, or both. Now I believe I was sick.” – Dahmer in his final statement to the court
Examining her son’s brain might then have helped Joyce dispell the notion that she bared any biological blame – particularly in response to Lionel’s claim that she had taken 26 pills a day while pregnant with Jeff and regular shots of morphine. Something she had always fiercely denied.
“Dr. Brown Miller says without further study there just is no answer, we do not have an explanation for Jeff’s behaviour,” Joyce said in a ’94 interview with Hard Copy, a few months before his death.
“In the absence of an explanation for anything we get scared. We’re afraid of unknowns, so we go for prefabricated answers such as the parents – and especially the mum’s… This has been a ready-made answer. ‘Mother the Monster Maker’ has been the easy way out of dealing with something we just can’t explain.”
Though arguably often distracted by her own mental health and an acrimonious marriage, Joyce maintained she had never noticed any peculiarities within her son. “There’s nothing that I look back on that gives any indication of anything abnormal,” she said. “If there was, I’d want it known.”
“It was clear she bore no responsibility,” attorney Gerald Boyle would later attest, following Joyce’s own death. “She had to live with the idea that she was the mother of a monster, and it drove her crazy.”
Description of Dahmer courtesy of ‘The Daily Telegraph’
Joyce lived in a humble 640-square-foot home, but had once turned down $10,000 from a tabloid hoping to obtain an exclusive interview. She spoke in-depth to reporters only occassionaly, had used her payment from Hard Copy to visit Jeff in prison, and a previous interview (two years after Jeff’s arrest) had been the desperate result of needing to talk about her guilt. However, she still faced accusations that her efforts to retain the brain had a financial motive.
“There is no money involved,” she insisted. “It’s not for publicity.”
Such accusations failed to acknowledge the “great hatred for the vultures who tried to make money off her son and her”4 and underestimated the charitable nature which had secured Joyce a masters degree in counselling and a role working with AIDS victims.
“She cared about people that nobody else cared about,” said one co-worker at the HIV community center Joyce helped found. “She was an amazing person who always gave unselfishly of herself and had a sincere compassion for people… She had so many trials and tribulations about Jeff. She was just overwhelmed by the pain of it all. It never left her memory.”
Despite that pain, Joyce harboured great empathy for the issues her son’s killer also had. “Something’s wrong with Christopher Scarver [too],” she once said. “I don’t blame Christopher. Something’s wrong with Christopher just as it was with Jeff.”
Ultimately, Joyce couldn’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to continue to try and learn what had driven Jeff – and, ergo, other similarly violent offenders – to kill. “If we have the opportunity, why not take it?” she attempted to ask her former husband. “This is the last and only thing I can do.”
When she got no response, Candice Skrapec tried instead:
“[Dr. Pincus] made clear to me that his arena is science, not the mass media. In other words, he would not be going to the press with ‘a story’…
I believe, Mr. Dahmer, that we have a very rare opportunity to advance our understanding of Jeff and others like him. Please, will you help us?
What is needed to proceed is your kind agreement to help us accomplish something useful on Jeff’s behalf, as well as your own, and in memory of the victims.”
– Extract from a letter from criminologist Candice Skrapec to Lionel Dahmer
Skrapec also contacted Jeff’s lawyer, Steve Eisenberg, emphasising that Joyce’s motives were “academic and humanitarian. Period.”
“[Jeffrey’s] death provides us with an important opportunity to learn about him specifically, and more about the phenomenon of serial murder in broader, scientific terms.”
– Candice Skrapec to Steve Eisenberg
Opting to stick to matters of his clients estate, Eisenberg didn’t reply either. “I’m not part of it,” he eventually stated. “It’s between Lionel and Joyce.”
Lionel later denied ever having heard from Joyce directly, and admitted he hadn’t responded to Skrapec because he didn’t know who she was.
Joyce’s enlisted professionals discussing their theories on what may cause serial killers Skrapec (l) interviewed in ’95, Pincus (r) in ’01
Despite being a scientist by trade, Lionel Dahmer objected to studying his son’s brain on the grounds that the right thing to do would be to honour the wishes of a man who (in Lionel’s words) had “wanted to be wiped out.”
Jeffrey Dahmer’s last will and testament reads:
“Upon my death, I wish for the body to be cremated as soon as possible. I do NOT5 want a funeral ceremony to be performed before or after the cremation. NO open casket. NO headstone or marker.”
Lionel Dahmer “To spread the ashes is closure. A study of his brain is not closure.”
He also objected to an autopsy and the use of life support in the event of serious injury.
Dahmer had often made his will to die known through self-deprecating remarks, self-harm and sardonic humour. “He had tendencies to denigrate himself,” Lionel told Larry King in a 2004 interview. “He even told his grandmother one time: ‘If I die, just throw me down the field.’ So he did not have a big self image.”
Other examples of Dahmer’s desire to be destroyed include:
A 1991 conversation with Dr. Smail, in which he lamented “years and years of bland desperation” and told the doctor that “death would be preferable” to the prison sentence he was facing. CCI staff later quoted Dahmer describing prison as “a living death.”
A short while after his arrival at CCI, a razorblade was found in his cell. Dahmer told Lionel he’d taken it “in case [things] got too bad in the future.” A few months later, Dahmer told a supporter – who’d regularly offered moral support and the strength of Christ – that “the best that I can hope for is an early death.”
When Dahmer’s former-defence attorney, Wendy Patrickus, warned him not to go into general population because he’d be dead within 6 months, Dahmer reportedly replied: “I’m hoping so.”
On August 23rd, 1993, he was restrained after being discovered in his cell with a plastic bag wrapped around his head. Prior to that, he had made two separate claims to staff members about making a noose out of his belt.
On October 4th, 1994 (just a month before his death) Dahmer, while being given a nitrous oxide sedative, asked a prison staffer: “Why don’t we do the taxpayers a favour and end it all right now?” He then said he hoped the guards wouldn’t administer CPR if he overdosed on the gas.
“‘If I could just stop that little throbbing muscle in my chest…” – Dahmer expresses suicidal thoughts during a 1991 interview with Dr. Smail
However, Jeff’s jailhouse conversion by May 1994 had also led to moments of spiritual awakening and some new found optimism. His prison minister recounted a young man who “had no death wish” and who sought a new purpose in sharing the gospel with as many people as possible.
Lionel also believed Jeff had eventually “lost his earlier belief that he should be dead for what he did” – but remained adament that what his son had committed to his will and testament was still the ultimate reflection of his wishes.
“Considering the thought invested by Jeff in that document, I’m certain that he fully expected it to be (formally) filed upon his death,” Lionel told the presiding Judge Daniel George, following the first of two hearings regarding the matter.
Lionel’s second wife, Shari, agreed. “I think Jeff didn’t want a funeral or a grave marker because he hated his notoriety so much,” she said. “I think he wanted to disappear and be forgotten and never be heard of or remembered again.”
Given Dahmer’s return to Christ, some have questioned whether religion might’ve played a role in Lionel’s reluctance to have his son’s brain dissected. However, the act of donating a body to science is not addressed in the Scripture, and thus cannot be a violation of any Biblical mandate.
Additionally:
Dahmer’s signature on a commitment to be baptised. Circa ’94
The state of a person’s body has no impact on their ability to be resurrected.
Revelation 20:12 refers to the resurrection of the dead lost at sea (“The sea gave up the dead who were in it… And they were judged, each one according to his works.”), while Ezekiel 37 depicts a valley of dry human bones which God breathes new life upon (“I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the Lord.”)
The gospel teaches that God judges a person by how they live, not what happens to their body after they die. Something many believers may have no control over (like in the event of a violent death).
In Romans 14:23, Paul writes: “Whatever is not from faith is sin.“ In other words, if one willingly does something that they believe to be sinful, it constitutes a sin – even if the action itself is not otherwise so. If organ donation had pricked upon Lionel’s conscience and felt profane to him, it would have been a sin – despite not being mentioned in the Bible.
“Jeff never really exhibited initiative… He felt inadequate, inferior… He was a withdrawn child.” – Lionel Dahmer on his son. Photo circa ’64
Lionel wasn’t opposed to organ research altogether though, making his objection solely secular.
“If Jeff had not legally set down his wishes,” he noted to Judge George, “then the questions of “research study” might be raised.”
Lionel also countered Joyce’s belief that their son would’ve wanted to aid science – claiming he had actually heard Jeff say “that he really did not want to be studied.”
While Lionel conceded that “a study concurrent with a complete study of [Jeff’s] family pedigree on both sides might have been efficacious,” he argued that a study of “dead tissue” could be harmful:
Extract from letter sent from Lionel Dahmer to Judge Daniel George. Dated October 1st, 1995
Also supporting the prompt cremation of Jeff’s brain was award-winning author, Brian Masters – who had befriended Lionel and Shari while researching TheShrine of Jeffrey Dahmer.
In a letter addressed to Judge George, Lionel quoted Masters as saying:
Original newspaper ad for ‘The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer’ (1993)
“I am distressed to hear that Jeff’s instructions have been disregarded and that you have been obliged to consign his body imperfectly to the elements…
The idea that his brain, a lump of dead matter with no more clue to volition, emotion or character than his tonsils, [could explain his crimes] is ludicrous, and I suspect other motives, probably related to financial gain.
The good doctors may study as much as they please, without profit, but less scrupulous opportunists may find other uses – be they merely to make noise and draw attention.
To suggest that Jeff’s legal Testament may be interpreted by others as they wish, on the grounds that he committed serious crimes, is logical nonsense; the one has nothing to do with the other.“
– Brian Masters writing to Lionel Dahmer in ’95
While Joyce had bitterly suggested that the media could try and “shame” Lionel into supporting a dissection (and had referred to him as “evil incarnate” in a suicide note following the release of his book) Lionel wasn’t averse to taking more shots at his former spouse during the brain campaign.
“I do not know why Joyce Flint would want to violate a person’s (even her own son’s) last legal wishes in this regard,” he wrote a few days before the first hearing. “However, I am speculating it may be related to amelioration of past actions and it certainly is not out of character.” He also described her attempts to maintain Jeff’s brain as “bizarre” and “misguided” – while her apparent claims to “seek sole lawful claim” of it were “presumptuous but, on thoughtful remembrance, predictable.”
Following his murder in November ’94, Dahmer’s body had been stored at a constant 4 degrees in a Dane County walk-in freezer.
“We had to keep Dahmer [in there] until the courts were satisfied, because he requested to be cremated,” said coroner Keith Epps – acknowledging that the fullfillment of the deceased’s last wishes was already underway. “Cremation would destroy all [legal] evidence.”
Finally, on May 16th, 1995, Dahmer’s killer was given a maximum sentence and set to be transferred to Missouri for further evaluation.
By then, Lionel also thought it was time to finally put the whole thing behind him.
“I don’t think there’s any story left to tell anymore.” – Jeffrey Dahmer speaking about his case in 1993
Dahmer had been bludgeoned to death with a barbell while cleaning a gymnasium locker room at Columbia Correctional Institution. His killer had also attacked another inmate, Jesse Anderson, in a similar manner. While Anderson would survive his injuries for two days before being taken off life support, Dahmer died soon after the attack.
A CCI nurse, Steve Helgerson, described the scene in which he discovered the neurologically dead Dahmer as follows:
Account from the official Dahmer/Anderson investigation report (dated November 28th, ’94) stating that Dahmer was brain dead some time before his official time of death at around 8.30 am
Dahmer’s brain – weighing over 1300 grams at the time of death – had been preserved in formaldehyde following his autopsy.
It was noted to have “severe blunt injury” – including anterior acute contusions (soft tissue injury often resulting in swelling and bruising); subarachnoid hemorrhaging (bleeding in the space between the brain and the thin tissue that covers it); hypoxic neurons (oxygen deprivation) and extensive lacerations.
Nevertheless, multiple representative sections of its tissue were removed while the rest of the brain was kept “for such review as may prove useful or necessary.”
In November 1991, Dr. George Palermo had recieved legal permission to scan Dahmer’s brain ahead of his insanity trial.
Dr. Palermo (who would testifify that, while “nobody can deny Jeffrey Dahmer [was] a sick person, he is not psychotic”) had insisted that “a complete psychological testing” should be done on the defendant – including electronic brain scans and a chromosome analysis6 – in order to provide an objective medical-psychiatrist report.
The results from Dr. Palermo’s brain scan on Dahmer were as follows:
Original CAT scan radiology report for Jeffrey Dahmer. Performed November 19th, 1991 at 6:45pm
In other words, Dahmer’s brain showed no abnormal characteristics, and Palermo reported the scan7 “as negative for pathology.”
“I was all in favor before of having him studied by tomography [CAT scan] and while he was alive,” Lionel later said. “We can really find something, perhaps. But not a dead brain.”
However, it may be worth noting that CAT scans are not without their limitations, and may fail to locate small or slower-growing tumours.
Compared to more advanced or invasive techniques, they also provide less detailed imaging of the brains soft tissue and are not as effective at detecting subtle injuries and differences between, or swelling within, tissue types.
Psychiatric disorders – primarily characterised by changes in thinking, mood, behavior and perception – are also not directly visible on such scans.
Discussing the possibility of a biological disturbance within her client (and the “unfavourable result” Palermo’s scan had meant for Dahmer’s defence), attorney Wendy Patrickus explained:
“There was a lot of discussion [about Joyce’s alleged 26-pills-a-day during pregnancy]. Now they are so careful with everything they give a woman when they’re pregnant… We saw [Joyce]. I liked her. She was a very nice lady, but she certainly did have a lot of mental health issues… Taking those medications during the time she was pregnant with Jeff, maybe it did have something to do with it. I don’t know… If he was born with a third eye or one arm, I’d say “OK, that’s an effect.” But it’s really hard when you’re touching on something that’s up in the brain, that’s psychological. Unless it would show up that there was a defect in the brain matter itself.”
– Wendy Patrickus in a conversation with author Steve Giannangelo
“[The jury] weren’t taking any chances… They wanted to make sure that he’s locked up for life. They didn’t want the chance that one of their sons could have been victimised by him. So, it was a: ‘Who cares about studying him? Let’s just put him away.'” – Wendy Patrickus on 10 jurors finding Dahmer insane and sentencing him to prison, rather than a mental instituion
Some of the many other theories for Dahmer’s psyche shifting towards murder include:
Original photo showing the severed dogs head 15-year-old Dahmer stuck on a pike as a “prank”
An intensely invasive and painful8 double hernia operation undergone when Jeff was just four-years-old. Lionel had noted a permanent “flattening” of Jeff’s personality from thereon and Brian Masters strongly believed the op had changed the trajectory of the young boys life: “The tactile intimacy of the operation had mingled the feeling of sexual privilege with that of corporal invasion, which is why he chose to regain control and restore his stolen potency with a loved object.” (Masters, ’93)
Dahmer’s teenage interest in dissecting roadkill and fetal pigs coinciding with the time he began masturbating – inadvertently associating any lingering thoughts of viscera with sexual arousal
Impaired brain development due to Dahmer’s heavy drinking and regular use of pot as an adolescent9
The result of some kind of genetic inheritence – though Lionel was very much against that idea. “We [Shari and I] are proud of the name [‘Dahmer’],” he said in an interview a few months before Jeff’s death. “Scientifically speaking, realistically speaking, there is nothing to indicate that the Dahmer’s are to be blamed in some fashion for genetics… For anyone to say something like this, something this terrible, has to be genetics – that is unscientific. It is very superficial.”
Feelings of familial neglect and abandonment – leading to an inability to form conventional, healthy connections with others; the development of borderline personality disorder; anxiety towards people leaving him; or/and low self-esteem and subsequent antisocial behaviour. The dysfunction and divorce “did affect him,” Lionel admitted. “But that is just my gut feeling.”
A blow to the back of the neck with a billyclub when teenage Dahmer was randomly accosted by a group of older boys
But so much conjecture only led to questions with no answers.
“We don’t know why he killed,” Lionel told CNN a decade after Jeff’s death. “I really believe there was a chance of finding that out, had he not been murdered and he had been studied extensively [while alive].”
Lionel and Shari Dahmer talk to Larry King, 2004
SHARI: There was an overwhelming desire. He admitted that. He had an overwhelming desire to have passive mates.
LIONEL: Even the psychiatrist that examined him for the purpose of the trial didn’t really know why he did it. But he did tell me why he felt that he could do what he did. Why he felt free to do what he did.
He told me that [after reading books on creation science], he felt that he was “up from the slime”, as he put it. You know: molecules to amoebas to Larry type of thing. Evolution. There was nothing [before he believed that], no direction by god. No one to be accountable to. No one to answer to at all.
KING: That’s what he believed?
LIONEL: That’s what he felt. That’s why he felt he could just do whatever he wanted to. That’s quite different from knowing the cause.
Attorney Robert Slattery had also attempted to uncover the cause of Dahmer’s criminality during a 1993 desposition.
“You had homosexual experiences that did not lead to the homicidal type of event that placed you in the situation that you’re now in,” he said to Dahmer. “Why did these events extend beyond the homosexual and get into the situation where you actually took the lives of your victims?”
Dahmer himself was as baffled as anyone.
“I’d like to know the reason for that, too,” he replied. “But I don’t.”
Dahmer was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder; antisocial, schizoid, obsessive compulsive and schizotypal personality traits; alcohol dependence; psychotic disorder; and paraphilia (based on the varying assesments of several psychiatrists) Mugshots from ’81, ’82 and ’91
On the morning of August 1st 1966, Marine veteran Charles Whitman ascended to the 28th floor of the University of Texas’ Main Building.
231 feet from the ground, the 25-year-old began to indiscriminately snipe at people upon and around campus. By the time police had dispatched Whitman with their own gunfire, 15 people lay dead and 31 were injured. Whitman had also stabbed to death his wife and mother.
In a suicide note, Whitman (who had been physically violent towards his wife previously and whose medical history noted debilitating headaches and complaints of rage) outlined his wish for an autopsy, “to see if there is any visible physical disorder.”
Dr. DeChenar uses a chart of the human brain to pinpoint the location of a tumor located in mass-sniper Charles Whitman (1966)
“I am supposed to be an average, reasonable and intelligent young man,” the note read. “However, lately I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts… I talked with a Doctor once and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt come overwhelming violent impulses… Since then I have been fighting my mental turmoil alone and seemingly to no avail.”
The autopsy uncovered a pecan-sized tumor pressing against Whitman’s amygdala – the part of the brain related to anxiety and the regulation of fear and aggression. Though experts could not speak with absolute clarity, some suspected that the tumour may have contributed to Whitman’s inability to control his emotions and actions.
Dahmer had always maintained that his own murders were driven by a “compulsion” and thoughts which had come “like arrows, shooting into my mind from out of the blue.”
Could his own kind of brain defect have explained this lack of self-control?
Dahmer during an interview with ‘Inside Edition’
NANCY GLASS: If you were out on the street now, would you still be committing the crimes? JEFFREY DAHMER: Probably. If this hadn’t happened, there’s no doubt I probably would be. I can’t think of anything that would have stopped me
The findings from Whitman’s brain also raised questions of accountability:
If it were proven that a tumor was the cause of such violence, would Whitman himself be less to blame? Does a defected part of the brain bear the ultimate responsibility for its hosts behaviour?
“What does it mean when somebody’s brain changes?” asked David Eagleman, a scientist studying the intersection between neuroscience and law:
“This really challenges us to think about criminality in a different way, because you don’t choose your genetics, you don’t choose your childhood experiences, your family of origin, your neighborhood, you don’t choose any of this stuff — and yet this is the stuff (your genetics plus your experiences) that makes you who you are. None of us would choose to have a brain tumor…
What stresses and strains us, as people, is knowing on the one hand that we are biological creatures, and knowing on the other hand that acts of violence like [Whitman’s] are so deep and awful that they feel unforgivable. We live in that tension.”
– David Eagleman
However, Eagleman noted that while the tumor could’ve been partly responsible for Whitman’s actions, “his crime was so horrific” it would be unlikely to change the public’s perception of him. “I think society would [still] not forgive him,” he said.
Other professionals stressed that brain dysfunction – regardless of the specifics – is still not an excuse for antisocial behaviour.
Following the verdict of the Dahmer trial, Dr. Park Dietz addressed offenders who may illegally pursue their paraphilia:
“If you long for such actions, it is your responsibility to seek treatment, to avoid situations that tempt you, and to find lawful ways of satisfying your urges until – through treatment – you change the direction or intensity of those urges.”
– Dr. Dietz
Unlike Whitman, Dahmer had not actively sought treatment prior to his first murder, at just 18-years-old. Nor in the nine years afterwards – before his killing resumed and continued until his arrest in ’91.
Other studies have found a range of abnormalities which may be present in violent offenders. Including:
Abnormal activity and low blood flow in the prefrontal cortex – associated with empathy, judgment, and forethought
Severe underactivity or dramatic overactivity when compared to the healthy brain of a non-offender (both of which can cause cognitive difficulties and emotional / behavioral changes)
A healthy “active” scanSevere underactivity in murderer ADramatic overactivity in murderer B
Reduced grey matter in regions associated with emotional processing, behavioral control and social cognition. “More gray matter means more cells, neurons and glia,” said a professor at University of Chicago. “That’s what you need to make computations and process information – whether it’s emotional information that you use to feel empathy, or information that you use to control your behaviour and to suppress your tendencies to react.”
Underlying damage from past head injuries, associated with an increased risk of violent behaviour. According to The Journal of Neuroscience, the increased rate of aggression and violence after a Traumatic Brain Injury ranges from 35% – 90%.
However, not all individuals with abnormalities engage in criminal behavior; and not all violent offenders display signs of physical brain abnormality.
Sections of Gacy’s brain
After serial killer John Wayne Gacy was executed in 1994, his brain was preserved in a ziplock bag and bestowed upon psychiatrist Helen Morrison.
Like Whitman, Gacy had expressed a desire to have his brain examined after his death. However, unlike Whitman’s study, nothing of interest was found.
“They basically told us that there’s actually nothing abnormal,” Morrison said. “So no tumor, no growth, no sign of any injury.” Although she held onto the brain in hope that its tissue might be analysed deeper down the line.
Five years earlier, forensic anthropologist, Dr. William Maples, had witnessed Ted Bundy’s autopsy – curious to see if there was anything abnormal about the brain of a man who had murdered at least 30 women across the American West.
But, as Maples later wrote: “When it was finally removed and examined, Ted Bundy’s brain looked like anyone else’s.”
The coroners who had autopsied Dahmer were themselves not aware of any possible behavioural conclusions that could be reached from the physical examination of his brain and requests made by researchers for Dahmer’s hair and skin follicles had already been denied.
Nevertheless, physically opening the brain would’ve offered a more intimate, microscopic exploration than Dahmer’s earlier CAT-scan had – potentially finding subtle lesions, microbleeds, mutations or injuries that may have been missed before.
Certain other disorders can only be definitively diagnosed through a brain autopsy.
Example of a postmortem sectioning identifying chronic traumatic encephalopathy
Although such studies aren’t typically carried out on a brain that has been dealt two major crushing blows.
Dr. Robert White, a professor of neurosurgery at Cleveland’s Case Western University (and who had previously studied the brains of Lenin and Stalin in Moscow) nevertheless supported similar research on Dahmer:
“I don’t think what they’re going to find is going to be revolutionary, but I see no reason why they should be prevented from examining it… To find out, for example, could he have a small tumour deep inside the brain somewhere? Did he have some evidence of injury?
With the studies that would be conducted with Dahmer’s brain, perhaps they would have a better explanation as to why his aggressive and peculiar behaviour was really a part of his physical organ.”
– Dr. Robert White
New Yorkers share their opinions on Dahmer’s brain May 5th, 1995
Joyce’s hired help, Dr. Pincus, also believed that a defective brain could lead disorderly behaviour.
In an later interview, Pincus explained:
“Morality and ethics are expressed through the brain. And if there’s something wrong with the brain, there could very well be something wrong with the expression of morality and ethics.
Human brain preserved in formaldehyde
If a composer wishes to let an audience know what is in his mind, he must have a symphony orchestra. And if the symphony orchestra plays well, and it’s terrible music, then there’s clearly something wrong with the composer. But if he wrote something and, after a terribe performance, an investigation reveals that the symphony orchestra was performing on broke instruments, then that must have had something to do with the poor performance. It doesn’t get the composer off the hook, but if there are broken instruments in the orchestra, it’s not fair to judge the adequacy of the composer.
[As for free will], let’s say, [free will] resides in some recondite place, but it’s expressed through the working of the frontal lobes. If there’s something demonstratably wrong with that system, and the behaviour could be explained by such a lesion, then I think it should be considered mitigating at least, if not exculpatory.”
– Dr. Jonathan Pincus in 2001
On October 3rd, 1995 – while the nation’s attention and world’s media was tuned to the verdict of the O.J Simpson trial – the battle for the brain of one of America’s most notorious serial killers was quietly fought in a near-empty courtroom.
MR. ROBERT B. FENNIG – Attorney at Law on behalf of Decedent’s Mother, Joyce Flint.
MR. LIONEL DAHMER – Decedent’s Father (appearing pro se via telephone)
DATE: October 3rd, 1995 TIME: 11:00 a.m.
THE COURT: All right. This is in the matter of the Estate of Jeffrey L. Dahmer… Appearing here today on a motion is Attorney Robert Fennig, is that correct?
MR. FENNIG: That’s correct.
THE COURT: And you are appearing on behalf of Mr. Dahmer’s mother –
MR. FENNIG: Joyce Flint.
THE COURT: Joyce Flint. And telephonically we have the father of Jeffrey Dahmer appearing personally. Your name is Lionel Dahmer, correct?
MR. DAHMER: Correct.
THE COURT: And are you there with an attorney or are you on your own?
MR. DAHMER: I am on my own.
THE COURT: Okay.
Any other appearances on behalf of any other party? Appears to be no other interested parties present in the courtroom.
We have a motion brought on by Mr. Fennig (on behalf of Ms. Flint) to have Jeffrey Dahmer’s brain, as I understand it, turned over for purposes of scientific research. And based on correspondence that I have received from Lionel Dahmer, that is opposed by him.
Is that correct, Mr. Dahmer?
MR. DAHMER: That is correct, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Fennig, before we went on the record here today I provided you with copies of the correspondence that the Court had received from Lionel Dahmer. Although they had been received some days ago, I had not had an opportunity to see them until today, having been out of the office for the last week.
Have you had an opportunity to review them?
MR. FENNIG: I have looked at them in the short time that I’ve been here. And I didn’t get any of these sent to my office either, so this came as a – not a surprise, but it… I didn’t get any other notice that there would be opposition to the motion.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FENNIG: If I may?
THE COURT: Hang on just a moment.
Mr. Dahmer, I want to touch base with you momentarily. Are you hearing Mr. Fennig?
MR. DAHMER: Barely. I can pick up a little bit of what he’s saying. I think he said that he did not receive any correspondence. Of course, I’ve been at a business meeting and I have sent you two pieces of information, faxes. On September 8th and October 1st.
THE COURT: Okay. Those have been received by the Court. But like I indicated, I didn’t read them until today and they were provided to Mr. Fennig today.
Mr. Fennig, are you prepared to go forward on your motion?
MR. FENNIG: Yes. Would it accommodate Mr. Dahmer, if I got closer to the bar?
THE COURT: It may help to some degree. That’s a fairly good microphone system, but it’s not perfect obviously.
(Mr. Fennig approaches Bench)
MR. FENNIG: Mr. Dahmer, tell me if you can hear me better now.
MR. DAHMER: That’s better.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead then.
MR. DAHMER: Not perfect, but better.
MR. FENNIG: Well, we’ll use what we have.
This motion, as the papers indicate, is brought by Joyce Flint, the natural mother of the decedent in this matter.
After the autopsy there remained brain and other tissue that was kept under the care and supervision of Dr. Robert W. Huntington at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. And he had these tissues under lock and key in one of the University Hospitals in Madison.
Attempts were made to contact him by my client back in June with the thought of submitting this tissue for scientific study. It was indicated by Dr. Huntington that he would not release the tissue unless there was some authoritative decision made in that regard.
Mrs. Flint had been trying to contact Mr. Dahmer by telephone, and she used other parties to attempt to contact him. She never got a response by any of her phone calls. Now from what I have read from Mr. Dahmer, he denies getting any phone calls.
MR. DAHMER: That’s not true.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FENNIG: Would you let me finish, Mr. Dahmer?
MR. DAHMER: I didn’t know that I wasn’t supposed to respond in kind during the speaking.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me explain how we will run the procedure here today.
First of all, Mr. Fennig is going to be allowed to present his argument. Then, Mr. Dahmer, I will hear from you before rendering any kind of decision. Because Mr. Fennig is the moving party, he will then have a final rebuttal opportunity after you have spoken.
MR. DAHMER: Okay, that’s fine.
THE COURT: If you can keep your comments until I address you, and then I will hear your argument in total.
MR. DAHMER: The only problem I have is remembering – if it gets too long – remembering where I was going to respond.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DAHMER: Okay.
MR. FENNIG: I’ll keep it quite brief. Based on nonresponses from Mr. Dahmer to Ms. Flint, it was suggested by contacting my office that I represented her back in November immediately after the situation at the jail. And I advised her that I would call Dr. Huntington and find out what it took to see to it that there may be a possibility of this [study] occurring and under what circumstances Dr. Huntington would agree to it.
I was then made aware that Mrs. Flint had contacted the Georgetown University Medical Center, and this was made by reference from some folks out in California. And Dr. Pincus has a widely known reputation in pathological neurological study.
I was advised that Dr. Pincus had grant money to take care of the transportation and the research at hand.
I wrote to Dr. Huntington about this, and he said he would accept that if I could get a Court order with respect to that. When I was here on the September 6th motion – that was brought by all the claimants in the estate – I then secured a court date for this motion and mailed it to all the interested parties as shown on my certificate of mailing. That was sent out, I believe, on the 12th. And Mr. Dahmer got that, by acknowledgment in his letter, on the 18th. I contacted Dr. Huntington and advised him that Dr. Pincus was available — I mean, Dr. Pincus was available to accept this tissue. I contacted Dr. Huntington who asked me for authority from Dr. Pincus. Dr. Pincus gave me a fax which I am showing to the Court now.
THE COURT: Let’s have it marked as an exhibit.
MR. FENNIG: And it’s, I believe, short enough to read.
(Exhibit marked)
THE COURT: Are there any other exhibits contemplated?
MR. FENNIG: Just one more.
THE COURT: Have it marked.
(Exhibit marked)
THE COURT: Okay. The first exhibit – for your benefit, Mr. Dahmer – is on letterhead from the Georgetown University Medical Center and bears the signature of Dr. — I’m assuming doctor? Yes.
MR. FENNIG: Pincus.
THE COURT: There it is. Jonathan Pincus:
That’s the extent of that exhibit. Go on, Mr. Fennig.
MR. FENNIG: Well, in answer, after I transmitted that fax of that letter to Dr. Huntington, he called me. We had a conversation, and I requested something in writing from his office with respect do Dr. Pincus’ offer. And that is Exhibit 2. And that I believe is short enough to read, as well. If you would?
THE COURT: Exhibit Number 2 has been given to the Court. It is on University of Wisconsin Madison Medical School letterhead, bears the signature of Robert Huntington who is identified as an associate professor and who did the post-mortem. It reads as follows:
And this bears Huntington’s signature.
Go on.
MR. FENNIG: Now the matter with respect to Mrs. Flint is that we have – – we have gone through the cremation process, which happened within the past two or three weeks. And this ultimate disposition of what is left of the remains of her son would bring final closure to her, at least. And — and I believe there would be no other means to do it better than this.
It would satisfy her. It would not be in — against any interests of the public. In fact, I think the public may benefit from it. And I don’t believe it would be in the — against any interests of Mr. Dahmer, the decedent himself, to have this done.
If you recall, by the means of his will —
And I bring that up because Mr. Lionel Dahmer made reference to it stating that any — any such disposal, either by cremation or the way we are asking for it, would be against what he set forth in his will. Mr. — He also indicated that he didn’t want to have any funeral services. And Mr. Dahmer had, if you will recall, had a memorial service within a couple of days after his death.
The point is, really, closure for Mrs. Flint. I think this would put her at rest. It would satisfy her to the point that some good has come out of all of this bad news in the last couple of years.
And for that reason her request is not outrageous. Her request is for the scientific — whatever scientific good can be made of this and I think deserves consideration by the Court.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Dahmer, I will hear from you.
MR. DAHMER: Okay. As to Joyce Flint contacting me personally, as she had said, she has had no response to her personal attempts. There were no personal attempts. I addressed that in my October 1st fax to you, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Dahmer, just for your information and to shorten up any kind of argument that we might have here, the fact that Joyce Flint may or may not have attempted to get your position on this matter or any kind of negotiations really has nothing to do with the Court’s decision and isn’t important to me.
MR. DAHMER: I feel it’s irrelevant, too. But I just wanted to answer that, remember when I broke in just a little bit ago.
THE COURT: Right. Okay, go ahead. On the merits of the matter then.
MR. DAHMER: Okay. I think I probably summarised the main point of disregarding Jeff’s instructions in his last testament, and I feel that that should take precedent. It’s not a matter, I feel, of whether I do or don’t want scientific study. I personally have strong feelings regarding the nonefficacious character of that proposal. But that’s neither here nor there. I feel — I feel that the main point is what his last wishes were, and to violate that would be legally wrong.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. —
MR. DAHMER: I could go on and on regarding the efficacious or nonefficacious character of the study, but I would rather — I’m more of a writing person as opposed to an articulate on the spot verbal person, and I would rather put that in writing. But I want to emphasise at this moment the compliance with his last testament, as for anyone.
THE COURT: Mr. Fennig?
MR. FENNIG: If I can refer to his last testament. Page two of his Will, paragraph 4, he stated:
If you will recall, Mr. Dahmer saw to a memorial service within days of the death of Jeffrey. And if he wants to go literally, he violated what he is now claiming would be a violation of the intentions of the decedent. So I think that’s close to being doublespeak.
So, I think we do have a very good possibility that possibly something good can come of this by this scientific study. And for that reason, the motion has been made.
THE COURT: Mr. Dahmer, I’ll give you one brief opportunity to respond if you wish.
MR. DAHMER: Okay. As to the funeral service, it was a private memorial service for my immediate family. And if he wants to argue to that point and seize upon that point, then he may want to prosecute me regarding that. But we are talking about the disposal of the wishes of Jeff for cremation of his body. The brain is part of his body. That’s all.
THE COURT: Okay. The Court has heard argument concerning this matter. And I have received — or actually will state now that I will receive Exhibit 1 and 2 from the two respective physicians or doctors involved in this matter, Dr. Huntington and Dr. Pincus.
The Court recognises a rather unusual situation here. It’s one that I have certainly never encountered before and probably won’t again.
We do have competing interests from the two parents of the deceased. Those positions have been expressed here today. There is in essence a balancing test that the Court needs to perform.
I recognise the statement of the wishes of Jeffrey Dahmer. It was contained in a document entitled his Last Will and Testament. And although it is not technically a legal will from the standpoint of disposition of any of his property, it’s not officially been admitted to probate. In fact, there was a stipulation and agreement by all parties that it wouldn’t constitute a legal will of sorts with any sort of dispositive effect on what to do with his remains. Nonetheless, it is an expression that the Court gives some consideration to of the deceased’s wishes as to what’s to be done with his body.
And that certainly is a factor that the Court takes into consideration here.
I am also concerned with the issue of closure. This is a difficult situation in our human existence, so to speak. It’s a rather evil chapter. And I believe that it would be beneficial to the public and to all concerned that there be closure, and that this matter be resolved once and for all, and that we move on.
There also obviously is some interest from a scientific standpoint. And perhaps there is some good that could come from an otherwise particularly vile series of events. Perhaps there is some type of scientific research that could be conducted that might shed some kind of light on why acts of this nature occurred.
However, the Court is again looking at a balancing kind of test there in terms of the potential good and bad that could come from the research. There is — or there are many different types of scientific research that can be conducted and many different levels of research that can occur from good to bad in range.
The Court is extremely concerned over the potential for exploitation of this type of research. I am very concerned and I have made some notes of my own, which pretty much coincided with the kinds of concerns raised by Dr. Huntington.
I am very fearful over the type of inquiry that’s going to be made into this analysis. What sort of comparisons are going to be made? What sort of samples of population we are dealing with in terms of comparing the tissue from Mr. Dahmer’s brain to other types of brains, brains from other individuals? I don’t know what is contemplated, and I am extremely concerned about the propriety of the handling of this issue and the avoidance of exploitation from the standpoint of any kind of pop research, pop psychology, that kind of thing.
So what I would like to do, Mr. Fennig, is I would like something from Dr. Pincus that would enlighten this Court in greater detail as to where we are going with this. Preferably I would like an opportunity to have him testify, which could be done by telephone just as Mr. Dahmer is participating here today. What I would like you to do is contact Mr. Pincus – or Dr. Pincus – and find out what his availability is and find out whether he would be willing to submit a more detailed analytical approach as to what direction he intends to take with his analysis, and preferably whether he would be willing to testify by telephone.
And after hearing that I would be inclined to make a decision with respect to what to do with this material. Because, at this point, to just carte blanche say “here you go, do with it as you wish” is beyond what this Court is willing to tolerate. And we could end up with a situation that digresses considerably from the purpose that is contemplated.
So, Mr. Dahmer —
MR. DAHMER: Yes?
THE COURT: — I will be getting some kind of feedback from Attorney Fennig concerning Dr. Pincus’ position, at which time we will be doing some scheduling of another hearing of this nature. And between now and then I would also invite you to, as you indicated during your argument here today —
MR. DAHMER: Yes.
THE COURT: — you would like to present further written argument to me, feeling that you can do so in a more effective manner than speaking —
MR. DAHMER: Well, the fact is I’ve been sitting up at night in a motel room typing.
THE COURT: I recognise the difficulty in terms of responding —
MR. DAHMER: Thank you.
THE COURT: — extemporaneously here today. So between now and the next hearing, if in fact we are to have another hearing — I would contemplate such depending on what Dr. Pincus is going to tell us. Between now and then you may submit anything in writing.
You have received notice from Mr. Fennig of today’s proceedings, correct?
MR. DAHMER: Yes.
THE COURT: So you have his address. Anything you send to the Court should likewise be copied to Mr. Fennig.
MR. DAHMER: I certainly will.
THE COURT: That will terminate then today’s proceedings. Mr. Fennig, if you would contact my scheduling clerk after you’ve received information from Dr. Pincus and arrange for another hearing of this nature, she will be able to accommodate you. Any questions?
MR. FENNIG: Just one thing. I think what I will also get will be a vitae with respect to Dr. Pincus’ qualifications.
MR. DAHMER: I’m sorry. I can’t hear that.
THE COURT: What he’s saying is he would attempt to get a vitae — curriculum vitae, a resume, whatever you want to call it — from Dr. Pincus. That would be very helpful for the Court, as well.
MR. FENNIG: And I will send it to Mr. Dahmer prior to the hearing.
THE COURT: Anything Mr. Fennig sends to the Court will likewise be sent to you, Mr. Dahmer. I assume he has your proper address.
MR. DAHMER: Yes, it is. Thank you.
THE COURT: That will conclude today’s proceedings.
MR. DAHMER: Thank you, Judge.
MR. FENNIG: Thank you.
*
Off the record at 11:27 a.m.
Summary of first hearing:
• A motion to have Jeffrey Dahmer’s brain studied posthumously has been filed by Joyce Flint, represented by Robert Fennig.
• Lionel Dahmer, representing himself (via telephone) has made his contempt for a study known in previous correspondence to the court.
Cassette tape used by Lionel Dahmer to record the hearing for Jeff’s brain
• Dr. Huntington – who’d overseen the supervision of the brain following Dahmer’s autopsy – had refused to release any remains unless the court ordered him to do so. Huntington believed Dahmer’s brain should be compared alongside a range of ‘normal’ and ‘antisocial’ brains, instead of being examined on its own: “Concluding anything from this one brain by itself is perilous and anti-scientific.”
• Dr. Pincus – a professor at Georgetown University Medical Center – was contacted by Joyce and agreed to dissect Dahmer’s brain:“It represents an unparalleled chance to possibly determine what neurological factors could have contributed to his bizarre criminal behaviour.”
• Fennig argued that studying the brain would not be against the public interest and would “satisfy” Joyce and “put her at rest.”
• Lionel wasn’t against the scientific study of body parts in general, but argued that “to violate [Jeff’s] last wishes would be wrong.”
• The court recognises the “rather unusual” situation of the hearing and recognises the last wishes of Jeff Dahmer. Judge George is also concerned about drawing this “rather evil chapter” of history out any longer, and worries that studying the brain could be exploitative and futile.
• George requests an outline of what exactly it is Dr. Pincus intends to do with the brain.
At 10 a.m on the 12th of December, 1995, Lionel telephonically reconvened with Joyce’s lawyer and Judge George for an hour-long follow-up hearing. Dr. Pincus also appeared by phone.
As per George’s request, Dr. Pincus provided an outline of how he would analyse the brain:
Dr. Pincus’ proposed plan for the dissection of Dahmer’s brain Dated November 13th, 1995
Lionel swiftly rebuked Pincus’ proposal, calling it a “shotgun approach” to creating a study just for the sake of gaining access to a notorious brain. “The media will know where that brain is going,” he said – dismissing Pincus’ claim that the study would be conducted in such a way that Dahmer’s name would not be connected to it.
Lionel also pointed out that Dr. Huntington had already examined the brain first-hand during the autopsy, when he noted that some of its features had been distorted through blunt force trauma. The idea that any good could come from studying “a lump of dead matter” – Lionel told the court – was “ludicrous.”
A few days before, Lionel had composed an affadavit emphasising the consideration with which Jeff had prepared his will and testament.
In it, Lionel claimed:
Dahmer’s will summarised in a news report following his murder
Jeff had wrote to attorney, Joyce Mozenter, asking her to prepare a will for him in ’93. Mozenter then sent the will to CCI, asking that it be witnessed by two people in order to be fully executed.
At one point, Jeff had asked for a change in the wording. He contacted his Madison attorney, Steve Eisenberg, requesting that this be made. The final typed will was then mailed to Jeff, where it was signed by him and two witnesses (the prison warden and the program assistant) on November 16th, 1993.
No material goods were mentioned in Dahmer’s will on account of the fact that everything in his posession – including items currently owned at CCI and those still held by the Milwaukee Police Department from his apartment – could no longer be considered his property. Eight 10 million dollar judgements obtained by lawyer Thomas Jacobson (whom Jeff described as a “foolish shyster” and an “impotent twit”) had vied for compensation for some of the victims – and essentially rendered Jeff “totally possessionless.”
The only ‘material goods’ Dahmer could therefore lay claim to were his body and its organs. “Since he really had no worldly posessions that he could legally designate for distribution, he focused on what was to be done with his remains,” wrote Lionel. “No life support, no autopsy, no open casket, no headstone, no funeral. But his body was to be cremated.”
Kress Crematory in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin Where Dahmer’s body (sans brain) was cremated in September ’95
An autopsy had been unpreventable when the State of Wisconsin had a legal duty to investigate the double-murder carried out within its prison system, and Lionel once more denied Fennig’s claim that Jeff’s last wishes had been already violated when Lionel had held a funeral service for him.
“When my wife and I came to carry out Jeffrey’s cremation directive, on December 1, 1994 [3 days after his death], we were prevented from doing so by Jeff’s murderer’s attorney,” he wrote. “At that time we got together in a very private meeting10 in which we prayed and talked.”
The affadavit concluded with the words:
Extract from an affadavit subscribed by Lionel Dahmer on December 8th, 1995
Back in court, Fennig insisted that they were actually “missing an opportunity to study Jeffrey Dahmer’s brain and any benefit that might be derived from such a study” – although he acknowledged the “very impassioned plea” from Lionel.
“Obviously, it goes without saying that Jeffrey Dahmer’s escapades and crimes represent a rather tragic episode in our social history [and] there has been much made of making closure,” Judge George said prior to sentencing. “The court would like to see that accomplished.”
Between Lionel’s adamance that disregarding his son’s carefully considered last wishes would set a poor precedent when it came to respecting any decedent’s last wishes; the lack of evidence to prove that a dissection would yield something meaningful rather than exploitative; and the agreement that the whole story finally needed to come to an end, Judge George decreed that the brain of Jeffrey Dahmer hereby be cremated:
Official order to destroy Dahmer’s brain. Dated the 14th of December ’95 and signed by Judge Daniel George
“It wasn’t a particularly pleasant subject to deal with. I’m pleased to have put it behind me.” – Judge George on having to determine what do with Dahmer’s brain
“By writing that will, he probably had fears that he would end up on display somewhere, like the Elephant Man,” Judge George – who’d had some familiarity with brain research after studying physiological psychology in college – later said of Dahmer. “Maybe something could have been learned from the analysis of the brain tissue, but I seriously doubt it…
Then considering how the guy died – you’re talking about doing research on a salvaged brain from someone whose skull was crushed by a steel bar by a very large, powerful man that beat him to the point where people who were transporting him [to hospital] couldn’t even recognise who it was.”
George believed both Joyce and Dr. Pincus would’ve considered their own proposal a “shot-in-the-dark.”
“[They] didn’t have anything for me to represent what it was that they wanted to do and how they’d be able to accomplish this,” he said. If more specific plans had been made, George admitted his decision might have been harder, “but I [still] think I would have done the same thing… I think the closure aspect of it – bringing this chapter to a conclusion without perpetrating more gruesome, ghoulish kinds of interest – was more beneficial for the victims, community and families.”
Part of Judge George’s verdict can be heard here:
“It’s nothing I’ve ever had to deal with before…” Clip from the second hearing. Featuring attorney Robert B. Fennig and Judge George’s final verdict (42 secs, subtitled)
A deeply disapointed Joyce was given 45 days to appeal the decision.
“Dad just wanted it over, he didn’t want this tragedy perpetuated any further. Mum thought maybe some kind of research could produce something good out of a really bad situation.” – Judge George summarising the debate on Dahmer’s brain. ’67 photo of Jeff, Joyce and Lionel
“I’m not going to let this go,” she said after the hearing. “I’m going to appeal and I’m going to find out why the coroner thinks there’s nothing to be gained from Jeff’s brain tissue when so many other experts disagree with him. It makes absolutely no sense. The scientific community believes [that] even if we didn’t find out anything, it would be useful.”
However, the gulf between Joyce’s desires and her circumstances was vast. The appeals process was expensive, and even her attorney had to admit that “Ms. Flint isn’t what you call particularly flush to finance something like this.”
After three weeks without any update on whether an appeal was coming, Lionel urged Judge George that the cremation happen soon, “[in] hope that I can quickly end this stressful incident.”
On January 12th, ’96, Joyce finally made her appeal, but it was delayed when it was filed through the wrong court. Eventually another hearing was scheduled for the 26th, but by then it was too late:
Jeff’s brain had been cremated just a few days earlier.11
Extract from docketing statement in the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey Dahmer, Deceased Dated January 12th, 1996
Though Joyce never found out whether Jeff’s crimes were the result of biology, her guilt would haunt her for the rest of her life. “I’ll be tormented in agony for eternity, just like they are,” she said of the victim’s families. “Their grief will always be so terrible and without end.”
“This is the grand finale of a life poorly spent and the end result is just overwhelmingly depressing… It’s just a sick, pathetic, wretched, miserable life story, that’s all it is. How it can help anyone, I’ve no idea.” – Dahmer
Lionel’s anguish was also palpable. “I remain a man in constant rumination,” he wrote in his book. “Often tortured in soul by the deeds of my offspring.” A source close to him in his twilight years revealed Lionel often spoke about Jeff – preferring to remember him as the innocent little boy he once had been.
Despite their hostility towards one another, neither Joyce nor Lionel should be condemned for their intentions towards Jeff’s brain. Evidently, both were trying to do what they felt would’ve been best for their son:
Lionel with a pragmatic reason which focused on a respect for bodily autonomy; Joyce with an empathetic optimism which looked to help wider society.
Although Judge George never personally recieved any criticism for his verdict, many people today still feel that a study might’ve been beneficial. Others think that it wouldn’t have made a difference – if only because the compulsions that drove Dahmer were intangible and undetectable.
Still to this day, much of Jeffrey Dahmer’s mind remains a mystery.
Header image includes artwork from Macabre Gallery
Sources:
Case documents, CCI, CNN and Cult Collectibles
The Milwaukee Sentinel, Wisconsin State Journal, The Capital Times, The Washington Post, The Daily Texan, LA Times, TheFresno Bee, The Ottawa Citizen
United Church of God
Library of Babel
Various books covering Dahmer’s case. Including A Father’s Story by Lionel Dahmer (1994), Irrestistible Impulses by Steve Giannangelo (2025) and The Silent Victims by Charles Klotsche (2000)
Amen Clinics
‘Charles Whitman’ and ‘University of Texas Tower Shooting’ on Wikipedia
r/Dahmer
True Crime Collective
Footnotes:
37-year-old Jesse Anderson was murdered in the same attack. A registered organ donor, Anderson’s heart, kidneys and pancreas were removed for donation. His brain was also retained for possible future study ↩︎
Lionel and Joyce’s second son, David, was born 6 years after Jeff. Lionel claimed David also opposed dissecting Jeff’s brain ↩︎
Unbeknown to Joyce, Jeff had murdered his first victim a few weeks earlier ↩︎
Quoted in The Milwaukee Journal by one of the few journalists Joyce had grown to befriend and trust ↩︎
Chromosomes, which carry hereditary characteristics, were suggested by some specialists to be similar along the criminally insane and could indicate an individual’s tendency towards criminal behaviour ↩︎
(as well as Dahmer’s electroencephalogram and chromosomal analysis) ↩︎
So painful, the young Jeff had asked his mother if his gentials had been cut off ↩︎
Alcohol would later smother Dahmer’s inhibitions when it came to killing and dismembering ↩︎
Dahmer’s memorial service took place on December 2nd ’94, and had included Lionel and Shari; Jeff’s brother, David; some of David’s friends; Dahmer’s prison minister, Roy Ratcliff; members of Roy’s congregation; two trusted camera crews; and the two sisters of Dahmer’s seventh victim, Eddie Smith. Lionel had requested the attending members treat it with confidentiality ↩︎
Dahmer’s brain was cremated on January 19th, 1996 ↩︎
This post took a long time to read but it was worth it! Incredible attention to detail! So much rare information! I think Jeffrey’s brain should have been studied, personally, but also understand his father’s concerns.
Thank you for sharing the full transcript, also! I’ve never seen that before 😊
😔🥀😢💔💔
This post took a long time to read but it was worth it! Incredible attention to detail! So much rare information! I think Jeffrey’s brain should have been studied, personally, but also understand his father’s concerns.
Thank you for sharing the full transcript, also! I’ve never seen that before 😊