:: Author's Note ::
:: Blood Stained: When No One Comes Looking ::
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
One observation I would like to point out, which is in the book but worded with the
psychiatric community in mind rather than the layman: Murder by disassociation. In
the mere month that Blood Stained has been available to the public, there’s been an
increasing interest in his story, which is good. What gives me pause, however, is the
eagerness of many who have written about or studied serial killers to lump-sum
David into one typical profile.
It is important to remember when categorizing for profession, fascination or one’s
own safety that most spree or serial killers view their victims as “things”. Bundy,
Gacy, Gein, the Zodiac, the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer…the list goes on
and on…obsessed over “things” reminiscent of “someone” they hated. This is
another reason that, with the exception of Gein, their body counts were so high. Like
a soldier in war fending off the enemy, they were not killing people; they were killing
things.
David murdered people, not things. His effort to develop relationships, often
longstanding ones, denotes a significant difference in pathology from these other
psychopaths and sociopaths. His love for who they were to him in the moment, not
necessarily what they represented, was defined by great remorse after they were
dead.
Herein lays the great debate about David Maust: Was he or was he not your garden
variety psychopath? No, he was an anomaly. There will be many who disagree, be it
from stubbornness or sheer ignorance of what the term psychopath genuinely
means, but if one is to apply labels, it is my belief that one must understand the
label. Psychopath does not mean crazy, insane, evil, dangerous or cruel; however, a
psychopath may carry one or all of those traits. Its fundamental foundation lies on
depravity and lack of remorse.
If it is difficult for society to accept that a serial killer may have remorse, then we are,
as a whole, in a regression that will only hinder prevention and aide in more tragedy.
I receive emails almost daily from readers who call David an animal rotting in Hell or
who, on the flip side, show compassion for his childhood traumas. I’ve yet to receive
one that excuses murder or his actions as an adult. That’s a positive, as there is a
large difference between killing and murdering which is supported by the governing
mitigation of circumstance. A soldier kills the thing called enemy; a serial killer
murders the thing called revenge; David murdered people called “loved ones”.
This, without a doubt, is offensive to the families and friends of David’s victims. To
assume, as bold in classification as it is, that David actually cared for those he
eradicated from mortal life, would be reprehensible for me to accept should I be in
their shoes. It is a statement not meant to rally forgiveness for David or his motives;
rather, it is to raise understanding and awareness.
Your children, and mine, may be the target of a psychopath and disappear without
notice by the hands of a stranger. Or they may be in a relationship which, on the
surface, seems void of danger. David’s love and remorse did not eliminate a
description of lethal. To that end, it is my earnest and unyielding goal to broaden
understanding. To me the Gacy’s and Bundy’s of the world are boring; their profiles
are entirely predicable and passé. My greatest fear for our children stems from the
anomalies like David Edward Maust.
Blood Stained was written in part to provide some closure for those willing to accept
it. There was never a trial for the three murders in Hammond; there was a plea
bargain. And then he died by his own hands. Perhaps the biggest gift he felt he ever
gave to society was his suicide. To argue prosecution and defense at this point is a
waste of time and energy. He was guilty; those murdered will not be coming back to
mortality; those who survived deserve the opportunity to move on.
In parting, I’m compelled to deliver this message: Despite any efforts, either large or
small, to put David on trial postmortem, I will not be privy. It’s over. Having said that I
will, as always, be open to discussion on how it happened, why it happened and
how to prevent it from happening again.
Sincerely,
Dory Maust
psychiatric community in mind rather than the layman: Murder by disassociation. In
the mere month that Blood Stained has been available to the public, there’s been an
increasing interest in his story, which is good. What gives me pause, however, is the
eagerness of many who have written about or studied serial killers to lump-sum
David into one typical profile.
It is important to remember when categorizing for profession, fascination or one’s
own safety that most spree or serial killers view their victims as “things”. Bundy,
Gacy, Gein, the Zodiac, the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer…the list goes on
and on…obsessed over “things” reminiscent of “someone” they hated. This is
another reason that, with the exception of Gein, their body counts were so high. Like
a soldier in war fending off the enemy, they were not killing people; they were killing
things.
David murdered people, not things. His effort to develop relationships, often
longstanding ones, denotes a significant difference in pathology from these other
psychopaths and sociopaths. His love for who they were to him in the moment, not
necessarily what they represented, was defined by great remorse after they were
dead.
Herein lays the great debate about David Maust: Was he or was he not your garden
variety psychopath? No, he was an anomaly. There will be many who disagree, be it
from stubbornness or sheer ignorance of what the term psychopath genuinely
means, but if one is to apply labels, it is my belief that one must understand the
label. Psychopath does not mean crazy, insane, evil, dangerous or cruel; however, a
psychopath may carry one or all of those traits. Its fundamental foundation lies on
depravity and lack of remorse.
If it is difficult for society to accept that a serial killer may have remorse, then we are,
as a whole, in a regression that will only hinder prevention and aide in more tragedy.
I receive emails almost daily from readers who call David an animal rotting in Hell or
who, on the flip side, show compassion for his childhood traumas. I’ve yet to receive
one that excuses murder or his actions as an adult. That’s a positive, as there is a
large difference between killing and murdering which is supported by the governing
mitigation of circumstance. A soldier kills the thing called enemy; a serial killer
murders the thing called revenge; David murdered people called “loved ones”.
This, without a doubt, is offensive to the families and friends of David’s victims. To
assume, as bold in classification as it is, that David actually cared for those he
eradicated from mortal life, would be reprehensible for me to accept should I be in
their shoes. It is a statement not meant to rally forgiveness for David or his motives;
rather, it is to raise understanding and awareness.
Your children, and mine, may be the target of a psychopath and disappear without
notice by the hands of a stranger. Or they may be in a relationship which, on the
surface, seems void of danger. David’s love and remorse did not eliminate a
description of lethal. To that end, it is my earnest and unyielding goal to broaden
understanding. To me the Gacy’s and Bundy’s of the world are boring; their profiles
are entirely predicable and passé. My greatest fear for our children stems from the
anomalies like David Edward Maust.
Blood Stained was written in part to provide some closure for those willing to accept
it. There was never a trial for the three murders in Hammond; there was a plea
bargain. And then he died by his own hands. Perhaps the biggest gift he felt he ever
gave to society was his suicide. To argue prosecution and defense at this point is a
waste of time and energy. He was guilty; those murdered will not be coming back to
mortality; those who survived deserve the opportunity to move on.
In parting, I’m compelled to deliver this message: Despite any efforts, either large or
small, to put David on trial postmortem, I will not be privy. It’s over. Having said that I
will, as always, be open to discussion on how it happened, why it happened and
how to prevent it from happening again.
Sincerely,
Dory Maust
| Copyright 2009 www.bloodstained-biography.com. All Rights Reserved. |
