Artsculture

'The Killer Within'

What makes someone commit mass murder? A doc's answers.

By Dorothy Woodend, 11 May 2007, TheTyee.ca

Killer Within movie shot (man with glasses and child)

Is reform really possible?

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Dorothy Woodend reviews the film 28 Weeks Later »

Subscribe: |

One cold night in 1955, a college student named Bob Bechtel drove to his home, got some guns and a piece of coconut cake, then visited the dormitory of Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, where he intended to enact the worst school shooting in American history. After killing a single student named Holmes Strozier, Bechtel turned himself into the police. He was declared unfit for trial by reason of insanity, and sentenced to life inside a hospital for the criminally insane. After serving less than five years, he was released (thanks in part to a letter of forgiveness written by Strozier's parents), and went on to become a loving husband, devoted father and respected member of his community.

Bechtel's story is the genesis of director Macky Alston's documentary The Killer Within, the opening night film for The 4th Annual Frames of Mind Mental Health Film Festival held at the Pacific Cinematheque in Vancouver. The festival, organized by Dr. Harry Karlinsky from the UBC Department of Psychiatry, offers a variety of screenings, workshops and panel discussions on issues related to mental health. It is a noble ambition, and the programming is mostly strong (Methadonia and Wide Awake, which both played at the VIFF, are excellent films).

The Killer Within, unfortunately, leaves much to be desired. It couldn't have come at a more timely moment, given that the shooting at Virginia Tech is still very fresh in the minds and hearts of most people. The opportunity to ask someone who was planning on undertaking something similar, but lived through the act and its consequences, is akin to documentary gold. Does one act define an entire life? Can you do something terrible and then go on to lead a perfectly normal, even happy, existence? Is one life more valuable than another? But many of the most pertinent questions go unanswered, as even more troubling issues are raised.

Violence questions unanswerable?

More than five decades after his crime, Bob Bechtel made the decision to come out of the killing closet, as it were, and talk openly about the murder. One might well ask, why now? His decision to tell his friends and family about the murder is perhaps understandable, but it becomes far less understandable when Mr. Bechtel decides to turn his experience into an Oprah moment, a personal quest to reveal the terrible costs of bullying. Mr. Bechtel claims he was teased and bullied from the age of four to 22, a relentless campaign that finally drove him to a desperate act. His decision to speak out is supposedly an effort to uncover the silent danger associated with bullying.

That is all fine and good. But the film doesn't dwell on the bullying aspect; rather it seems at some pain to dismantle this part of Bechtel's story. Incidents at Swarthmore, including one where a group of boys took Bechtel's bed outside and peed on it, are definitely nasty, but are they enough to drive someone to murder? Interviews with faculty members at the college dispute that there was any bullying in the dorms at all, and Holmes Strozier, the boy whom Bob Bechtel murdered, is remembered as a sweet, good-natured kid. Truth is a slippery creature, and as the Rashomon-like aspects of the story become more apparent, your level of trust in Bob Bechtel starts to erode.

The mutability of memory and perception are well-established problems in reconstructing murder, but the state of mind in which Bob Bechtel undertook the decision to kill is difficult to ascertain. A clear diagnosis is never really given; although it is obvious his mental condition was definitely irrational. (The coconut cake is only one weird element in the story.) The one defining thing Bob remembers is a sense of elation, that he was going to finally take decisive action to end his suffering. But his family and friends ascribe to his story "a lack of emotion," or "no real feeling for the family of Holmes Strozier." Others describe the murder as, "a real piece of evil." Bob, himself, recounts the murder in a flat manner, punctuated every so often by a strange little giggle. Many of the facts of his crime are presented obliquely in media interviews, lectures that Bob gives at universities or asides to his family as they return to the sight of the original crime.

Murder and self absorption

The film is frustrating in that it dances around questions of guilt and responsibility. The figure at the very heart of the story never really answers any of the most obvious questions. Instead, much of the narrative is carried by Bechtel's daughter Carrah, a weepy, self-involved young woman who can't seem to get beyond how the story affects her. In lieu of analysis, the film offers mostly sentiment, and the solipsistic talk of closure and healing quickly becomes off-putting.

Part of the problem might be that Bechtel's wife and daughters simply lack the ability to get much beyond their own personal reactions. This is understandable; they are, after all, normal people. Bob's wife Beverly and his step-daughter Amanda both allude to the fact that Bob has a darker side, a violent part of his personality that frightens his wife, and causes his daughter to reassess her sense of herself. When Amanda was told the facts about Bob's story, she says that it came almost as a relief, that Bob's anger wasn't caused by the fact that she was a bad kid. While it's impossible not to have some sympathy for the Bechtel family, especially his two daughters, they don't offer any deeply critical thought on his story. The film focuses a little too often on the two sisters weeping, these emotional reactions aren't terribly useful, and they occasionally border on self-dramatizing. The person who appears the most reasoned and thoughtful is, oddly enough, Holmes Strozier's brother who talks about his fantasies of revenge, and his family's need to forgive Bob.

Reconstructions of a killer's mindset are pored over endlessly after a school shooting, but by that time the perpetrators are usually dead. Here, the filmmaker had a chance to ask someone who lived through a similar experience what it was that drove them to that instance of brutal action, but the question is never directly raised. One of the counsellors interviewed in the film talks about the need to commit violence as a masculine act, which is also the central idea of a speech given by Jackson Katz about recent school shootings. Whether Bob Bechtel's decision to kill was the result of a culture of masculine bullying, or whether he, himself, was the victim of a brain disorder, the larger question about the social ramifications of mental illness and violence are never sufficiently addressed.

Mental illness and violence

There are a number of cases before the U.S. Supreme court, currently arguing these very ideas. The U.S. Surgeon General recently stated, "The overall contribution of mental disorders to the total level of violence in society is exceptionally small." Often, it is the other way around, people suffering from mental illness are themselves more likely to be subjected to violence. The level of intolerance against mentally ill people who commit crimes has not been helped by the case of The Virginia Tech gunman, Cho Seung Hui, who is described not only as deeply troubled young man, but as "mean." It is doubtful, had Cho Seung Hui lived after his rampage, that the state would not have sought the death penalty in his case.

The desire for vengeance is almost as well established in U.S. culture as the belief that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. The pairing is often a deadly combination. But is government-sanctioned revenge any better than the kind enacted by a sick young man? The culture of an eye for an eye can be terribly hypocritical. If Bob Bechtel were to perpetrate the same crime today, his fate might be very different. Does this mean that the justice system in 1955 was in some way more humane in dealing with mental illness than it might be currently? Perhaps.

According to a recent Harper's Index, the statistics are little grim:

  • Percentage of American adults held in either prisons or mental institutions in 1953 and today, respectively: 0.67, 0.68
  • Percentage of these adults in 1953 who were in mental institutions: 75
  • Percentage today who are in prisons: 97

Such figures don't speak to a growing level of understanding or compassion for people who are suffering from mental illness. The idea that a murderer can be a kind and loving person isn't particularly earth shattering. Anyone who has ever seen active combat during wartime has had to deal with similar issues. The most compelling part of Bob Bechtel's story isn't the murder, but the idea that a mentally ill young man, could get better, and be offered a second chance at life. If Bob Bechtel had been put to death, the many people whom he affected in his lifetime (his wife and kids, his students, his family and community) would never have had the opportunity to know and love him. But Holmes Strozier's life might also have been just as rewarding, had he the chance to actually live it. The questions are theoretical, since there is no way of answering them. The best the film can do is to invite the audience to make up its own mind, opening a path to rational discussion about an irrational act.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Dorothy Woodend reviews films for The Tyee every second Friday.

11 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • James Burns

    5 years ago

    Brains...

    The latest neurological research seems to indicate that there are an immense number of neurological wiring quirks that come about due to a mix of genetic predisposition and environmental effects. In particular, the fetal environment during gestation seems to have an enormous impact on the future neurological characteristics of a person, far more than scientists first suspected. The nature vs. nurture debate has repeatedly been shown to be utterly mistaken, as it is how nature and nurture interact that is important.

    Events and experiences for some can have a vastly more profound, and quite often a more damaging effect on their behaviour, because their particular neurological characteristics are primed to be more affected by them. Characteristics which have come about because of their mix of genetic and environmental factors. This helps to answer the question why some people can deal with bullying without resorting to violence, while others take the opposite extreme.

    Treatment is always the best option, but mental health is the most neglected area of health care. Most people can be taught to recognize and deal effectively with those stressors that cause them to behave in socially unacceptable ways. Of course in some cases it is society's acceptance of certain behaviours that should change (as the history of women's and homosexuals' rights has shown).

    Unfortunately, in much of today's political environment, attitudes are focused on punishment after the fact, with the flawed notion that fear of punishment will act as a deterrent. Deterrents are important, but those most deterred are those least likely to engage in the punishable behaviours. Not nearly enough resources are dedicated to prevention.

  • Kano

    5 years ago

    Great review, expressed

    Great review, expressed thoughtfully. I'm always a little baffled by the bizarre 'confessional Oprah-circuit' thing. I'll have to reflect a little on the issues raised by this movie and review. Thanks for that!

  • clubofrome

    5 years ago

    Environmental Factors

    We could learn from other species and how their behavior is affected by stress. The human animal is not immune from what other species see as a threat to survival. I would think there is a strong survival instinct that is programmed in our relatively young and underdeveloped brains. No one condones murder outright yet society continues to oppress and go to war for oil and money. For greed. I'd say there is a serious flaw some where and these cases of mass murder are going to continue until we have a better understanding of our role in nature. Even then there is no defence against defective units. Our best chance for survival is to evolve into a peaceful society based on respect for all forms of life. Then maybe we will start to value what we have.

  • Cycling Commuter

    5 years ago

    Serial-killing drunk drivers: prevention is the only answer.

    Quote:
    James Burns wrote:

    ...punishment after the fact, with the flawed notion that fear of punishment will act as a deterrent. Deterrents are important, but those most deterred are those least likely to engage in the punishable behaviours. Not nearly enough resources are dedicated to prevention.

    Vehicular killings by drunk drivers far outnumber other types of murder. After-the-fact punishment doesn't accomplish much in the way of deterrence. Drunk drivers are already subject to execution on the spot by the laws of physics and biology when they become one of the victims of the crashes they cause.

    Someone I know once worked with a young woman who had already killed two people on two different occasions while driving drunk. She continued to drink and drive after relatively short license suspensions. She said the deaths were "fate," they were just "bad luck, they were "meant to be."

    23-year-old Karine Methot of Montreal is one of the most recent drunk driving victims. She has been declared clinically dead after the back of her head was smashed-in when she was struck in front of her own home by a van driven by Raymond Levesque, 57, a drunk driver with 6 previous drunk driving convictions. See http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/05/11/qc-methotdeath0511.html

    Prevention in this case would have meant a minimum 5-year loss of driver's license upon first conviction of drunk driving, 20 years the second time, permanent loss of license the third time, and exponentially increasing prison terms for driving without a license after being convicted of drunk driving. Banishment to an island without cars could be offered as a substitute for prison. There should be no return of drivers' licenses without first doing a thorough medical/monitoring assessment to determine whether there is an ongoing alcoholism problem. When a license is returned, the driver should be restricted to ultralight 350 pound vehicles with limited power/speed (like the car at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JNohHaqM4) that can't do as much damage as a large, heavy vehicle.

    A further extremely important preventive measure would be to vastly increase the number of cabs on the road around pub closing times and significantly lower cab fares. This can be easily accomplished by issuing an unlimited number of part-time taxi licenses to drivers with perfect driving records while completely deregulating cab fares and requiring that passengers know in advance what the cost per km will be. Taxicab safety/honesty regulations can be maintained or strengthened at the same time.

    Toyota is testing another preventive approach - a sensor built into steering wheels that can detect alcohol in a driver's perspiration then prevent the car from starting. A determined drunk could try to get around this by wearing gloves, but it's a simple matter to detect such an attempt.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    I think this one passage

    Quote:
    The desire for vengeance is almost as well established in U.S. culture as the belief that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. The pairing is often a deadly combination. But is government-sanctioned revenge any better than the kind enacted by a sick young man? The culture of an eye for an eye can be terribly hypocritical. If Bob Bechtel were to perpetrate the same crime today, his fate might be very different. Does this mean that the justice system in 1955 was in some way more humane in dealing with mental illness than it might be currently? Perhaps.

    Is probably worthy of another lengthy article and subsequent discussion.

    And not just relative to the United States.

  • Bailey

    5 years ago

    Mixed nuts

    This whole question of crime and punishment has a statistical side that fascinates me.

    Whenever you get millions of people jostling elbows in a small space most everything that can happen will happen.
    Pressures, diseases, traffic, emotions, cultural taboos, all will take their toll at certain rates. Ask any insurance type, and he'll look them up for you.

    The only thing not predicted by the actuarial tables is which poor souls will suffer, and which will cause their suffering.

    When I was teaching my children to drive, one of my favourite lessons was statistical: The government health authorities declare that 1 in 5 Canadians will be treated in their lifetimes for mental disorders. Given that only 20% of actual cases will ever be detected to treat, and the fact that almost everybody has a license, most of the drivers you will encounter most days on the road are probably nuts, and all of them should be considered highly suspect all of the time, yourself included.

    This idea of punishment leaves out the most important thing it needs to be effective. It happens at the wrong time, to the wrong people.

    For Mr. Bechtel to be talking on the "Oprah circuit" should be a pretty effective type of treatment. Both for himself and our communities. The fact that it comes so late might be nothing but an artefact of the way we medicate such people to prevent their healing for sometimes decades. I think it might even be quite brave of him to do it.

  • margot

    5 years ago

    medication

    My first thought when I heard about this was that the young man might have been tipped by his medication. Sure enough, he had been "treated", and was doubtless on some rebound-likely SSRI or benzo.

    When I checked around, I was far from the only person thinking about this.

    I find it tragic and terrifying that when people mess up on so-called anti-depressants, it always gets blamed on something else, a brain tumour that then doesn't get found, for example.

    Peeling back, through the side-effects and symptoms that most doctors refuse to recognize for what they are, to the point where often what should have been a very small problem that could have been resolved with really good listening for about 20 minutes, but Ativan or Paxil or Prozac was prescribed because the person seemed tiresome and/or unimportant to the doctor, just doesn't get done. And is heavily resisted, on all levels. Pharma, doctors, press herds, and...victims, greedy family members.

  • margot

    5 years ago

    cycling commuter

    Great comments, perspective. And good link to recent tragedy in Montreal.

    I want to add that I don't want to hear that driver has been forbidden to drink but may drive...if he's a good boy and takes his Prozac.

    Drunks know. People taking so-called anti-depressants don't. In a way they are more dangerous because they believe they are doing the right thing.

    If the stuff on medication labels, about not operating heavy machinery and driving until you know how the med affects you, got plastered on bottles of gin, the nation would be in a total uproar.

  • dorothy

    5 years ago

    not the whole story

    "I'd say there is a serious flaw some where and these cases of mass murder are going to continue until we have a better understanding of our role in nature. Even then there is no defence against defective units. Our best chance for survival is to evolve into a peaceful society based on respect for all forms of life. Then maybe we will start to value what we have."

    Amen to that! The serious flaw is, that we, or some of us, have insisted on cramming too many 'units' unto this planet. It is time to hit the brakes on numbers. Why do we not do it? 'for greed', that's why! Expanding markets can only be achieved through expanding numbers of people, and so the powers that be co-operate in trying to pretend that this is not our primary problem, and those who think it is are the devil's children. Gods rottweiler is right in the middle of the fray, railing at youth in Latin-america, where there were squads out on the streets some years ago, taking care of the 'supernumeraries' by night, and whose populations are desperate to get out and go north; the US sends them south again by the truckload, back to their over-populated Hell. Can it get more hypocritical? When will we remember what Desmond Morris said thirty years ago, that Mankind might have a chance, if we learned to set quality over quantity?

  • clubofrome

    5 years ago

    Seems obvious....

    How can you explain what should be elemenatary level education to those whose only life focus is in a bubble. Society has become ego centric to the point where I can't see how even major changes in education to teach ecology will make any difference. The shear numbers of humans and their ever diversifying cultures, wants, desires, freedoms and abuses are now overwhelming. I can think of no better description than it's a cancer on the earth. Sure we can deliver treatment to parts of the world, reduce pollution, eat organically, slow down consumerism, make wise choices, but humanity is spreading farther and faster and what chance is there to rein in this assault? We can't even get concensus on global warming. The missinformation is spread from the top down and were herded into society's urban centres and all of it's perils. Control of the press and just enough wealth to chase for us to keep our want for justice under the carpet. We don't want justice, except for ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn't stand for what has happened to our democracy. Most voters are brainwashed by the TV and those non voters are even less informed. How easy is it to manipulate society and the creation of wealth for the profit for the few of the self declared ruling class? I hope that some of our regular contributors are correct when they predict a revolution on the horizon. It's the only time the people can take back any power. Significant obstacles stand in the way of human evolution. Continuing down this path based on economics will stop us dead in our tracks and likely send us backwards for many hundreds of years. What's left after that is anybodies guess.

    I just can't believe the arrogance of our species to put us above nature. Our life support system is being slowly eroded, and we're still arguing over what's causing global warming. And we have much bigger problems ahead than that! You have to laugh, just to keep from crying...

  • dorothy

    5 years ago

    the merits of instruction

    I do not believe education alone will do the job. It is about attitude.

    People in all quarters of the world are scared and angry now. They have been fooled into believing in the ‘endless party’ cosmology, and it’s breaking down in front of their eyes. Mother Earth is calling the end of the game, where she keeps losing. The new religions that arise are all directed towards solving one’s problems in the inner space, not because it can be done there, but because that sells. Most people can at least be led to believe they have control over that.

    We must take 180 degree turns on some of the things we have been doing. We can see this. Some cannot, and their ‘solutions’ to the problem are in gross disagreement with ours. We cannot avoid a quarrel or worse with those people. We should prepare for it. We have turf worth defending as well as worth taking, and they know it. And they don’t intend to play nice.

    Diversity is not the problem. In Canada, we are not diverse. Our mainstream is unidirected towards being good little concumers. It doesn’t matter what cute cultural overtones we attach to it, we all go to Canadian tire or some such place sometime in out lives. This also means that usurpers can come in and take over that unidirectedness. Political radicalism is just another consumer good, where we pay, not with our money (well, sometimes that too), but, more importantly, with our dignity. Dignity should not be negotiable, but it is. And one of the most powerful social norms in our neck of the woods is, that stripping everyone of their dignity adds up to equality. The hope among the followers of social radicalism is, that they will get into position to do this to the perceived power elite, as they feel it has been done to them.

    This is all a result of crowding. We have become too cheap a commodity, and we have done it to ourselves. Supply and demand. What will we do? Not listen to The man in Rome, that’s for sure.. But what else? Your ideas are as good as mine. We might perhaps take inspiration from Joe Hill: Don't mourn - organize.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.