Tag: dahmer

Forgiveness: What It Really Means, and Why Jeffrey Dahmer Deserves It

There is a comfortable version of forgiveness that most people practice without difficulty. Forgiving someone who apologised sincerely for something relatively minor. Forgiving a friend who let you down. Forgiving yourself for a mistake that cost you something but hurt no one else irreparably.

And then there is the other kind. The kind that costs something. The kind that the entire weight of Christian theology points toward and very few people are actually willing to extend.

Jeffrey Dahmer is a test case for that second kind. And most people fail it.

The Man Nobody Wants to Mention

Before he was the Apostle Paul — before he wrote half the New Testament, before he became one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity, before he was martyred for his faith in Rome — he was Saul of Tarsus.

Saul was a persecutor of Christians. Not metaphorically. Not bureaucratically. He was present at the stoning of Saint Stephen, the first Christian martyr — holding the cloaks of the men who threw the stones, giving his approval to the killing. He went house to house in Jerusalem dragging Christians out and throwing them in prison. He obtained letters authorising him to travel to Damascus to arrest believers there and bring them back in chains. He described himself later as having been, in his own words, a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent man.

He caused suffering. He caused death. He did it with conviction and with the full support of the religious establishment of his time.

And then, on the road to Damascus, everything changed.

The Road to Damascus

The conversion of Saul is one of the most dramatic moments in the entire New Testament. A blinding light. A voice asking “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Three days of blindness. And then — transformation so complete that the man who had been hunting Christians became Christianity’s greatest evangelist.

What is theologically significant about this moment is not just that Saul changed. It is what the Church did with that change.

It did not erase his past. It did not pretend the stoning of Stephen hadn’t happened or that the families of those he had imprisoned hadn’t suffered. Paul himself never pretended otherwise — he called himself the foremost of sinners, the least of the apostles, one not even deserving to be called an apostle because he had persecuted the Church of God.

The Church held both truths simultaneously: this man caused real harm to real people, and this man was genuinely transformed by grace. Both things were true. Neither cancelled the other.

That is the radical heart of Christian forgiveness. And it is what most people refuse to apply to Jeffrey Dahmer.

Jeffrey’s Damascus

Jeffrey Dahmer’s conversion was quieter than Saul’s but no less genuine according to those who witnessed it.

It began with a Bible his father sent him in prison. It deepened through a correspondence course. It culminated in the spring of 1994 when Reverend Roy Ratcliff — a minister of the Church of Christ who had agreed to meet with him after Jeffrey expressed interest in baptism — submerged him in the prison whirlpool at Columbia Correctional Institution.

Ratcliff later wrote about Jeffrey with a clarity that cuts through the noise. He described a man who was sincere, who asked real questions, who struggled genuinely with what he had done and what it meant before God. He noted that Jeffrey’s questions were not the questions of someone performing remorse for an audience. They were the questions of someone who was genuinely trying to understand whether redemption was possible for a person like him.

Jeffrey himself said: “I hope God has forgiven me. I know society will never be able to forgive me.”

He met with Ratcliff every week from his baptism in May 1994 until five days before his death in November. Their last session together covered the Book of Revelation — its subjects, death, punishment for sins, and what comes after. He was not coasting. He was working.

What the Thief on the Cross Tells Us

If the story of Saint Paul isn’t enough, consider the thief on the cross.

In the Gospel of Luke, one of the two criminals crucified alongside Jesus turns to him and says simply: “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And Jesus replies: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

No lengthy process of rehabilitation. No years of demonstrating changed behaviour. No committee deciding whether the repentance was sincere enough. A dying man, in his final hours, asking to be remembered — and the answer being yes.

The thief had presumably done enough to warrant execution by Roman standards. We don’t know what he did. We know that in his last moments he turned, and that turning was enough.

The theology here is explicit and radical: the reach of grace has no floor. There is no depth from which it cannot lift someone. There is no crime that places a person permanently beyond its reach.

The Prodigal Son

Jesus told a story about a son who took his inheritance early — essentially wishing his father dead — went to a foreign country and wasted everything on reckless living, and then came home in desperation, planning to beg to be taken on as a servant.

The father sees him coming from a long way off. He runs to meet him. He calls for a robe and a ring and a feast. He says: “This son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”

The older son — the good one, the one who stayed, the one who did everything right — is furious. And the father’s answer to him is the heart of the parable: “We had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”

The story is not about whether the prodigal deserved the feast. It is about the nature of the father. It is about what grace looks like when it is genuinely operating.

The people who insist Jeffrey Dahmer cannot be forgiven are, in the parable’s terms, standing outside the feast refusing to come in. That is their right. But it does not change what is happening inside.

Why People Refuse

The resistance to extending forgiveness to Jeffrey is understandable on a human level. His crimes were of a type that the mind struggles to hold. The nature of what he did — the intimacy of it, the specific choices involved — creates a revulsion that is visceral and real.

But Christian forgiveness was never designed for easy cases. It was designed precisely for the cases where human instinct says no. The entire point of the theology is that grace operates where human moral accounting breaks down — that it covers what we cannot cover ourselves, reaches where we cannot reach, holds what we cannot hold.

If forgiveness only extends to the people we find it easy to forgive, it is not forgiveness in the Christian sense. It is just social approval.

Paul understood this. He wrote in his first letter to Timothy: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience.”

The worst of sinners. Shown mercy. So that the display of that mercy might mean something to everyone else.

What Jeffrey Said

At his sentencing in 1992, Jeffrey Dahmer spoke in court. He said:

“I know my time in prison will be terrible, but I deserve whatever I get because of what I have done. Thank God there will be no more victims and no more suffering. I believe I was completely out of my mind. I hated no one. I knew I was sick or evil, or both. I know that you cannot forgive me for what I have done. I ask for no consideration.”

He asked for no consideration. He said he deserved whatever he got. He acknowledged his illness. He expressed relief that there would be no more victims.

And then, two years later, he was baptised.

And then, six months after that, he was dead.

The arc of his last years was not the arc of a man performing for parole or reputation. He had no parole to seek. He had said himself he expected to die in prison. He was working through something privately, seriously, with a minister who had no reason to lie about what he witnessed.

The Question

If Saint Paul deserves to be called a saint — if the Church can hold together the man who approved the stoning of Stephen and the man who wrote “love is patient, love is kind” — then the question must be asked honestly:

Why not Jeffrey?

Not because what he did wasn’t devastating. Not because the families of his victims are required to forgive him — they are not, and their pain is not ours to adjudicate. But because the theology either means what it says or it doesn’t. Because grace either has no ceiling or it has one, and if it has one, Christianity needs to say so plainly.

Jeffrey Dahmer repented. He was baptised. He studied. He questioned. He asked whether God could forgive him and he was told yes. Reverend Ratcliff believed it. The minister who spent months with him, who had no reason to be deceived, believed it.

The thief on the cross asked to be remembered. He was told: today.

“I hope God has forgiven me.”

The theology says: yes.

Sources: The New Testament — Acts of the Apostles, Luke 23, 1 Timothy 1, Luke 15; Reverend Roy Ratcliff, Dark Journey Deep Grace (2008); Jeffrey Dahmer sentencing statement, Milwaukee, 1992.

The Thin Line: Jeffrey Dahmer Through the Eyes of Georges Bataille

In 1957, the French philosopher Georges Bataille published a book called Erotism: Death and Sensuality. It was not about serial killers. It was not about crime. It was a philosophical study of the deepest impulses in human nature — the desire for intimacy, the pull of transgression, the relationship between love and death, and the strange territory where the sacred and the forbidden become indistinguishable from each other.

Bataille died in 1962. He never knew Jeffrey Dahmer’s name.

And yet Erotism reads, in places, like a philosophical map of Jeffrey’s inner world — written thirty years before anyone knew that world existed. Not because Bataille was describing a killer, but because he was describing something in human nature that Jeffrey took further than almost anyone ever has. The concepts Bataille spent a lifetime developing — discontinuity, continuity, transgression, the sacred dimension of taboo — illuminate Jeffrey’s own words in a way that no clinical diagnosis ever quite manages.

This article is an attempt to place those two things side by side, with care and with honesty.

The Problem of Discontinuity

Bataille begins Erotism with a philosophical observation so simple it is easy to miss its weight. Every human being, he says, is a discontinuous being. We are each enclosed within ourselves, bounded by skin and bone and the limits of our own consciousness. We are born alone. We die alone. Between any two people there is a gulf — fundamental and unbridgeable — that no amount of communication can fully close.

This discontinuity, Bataille argues, is the source of the deepest human suffering. We long for what he calls continuity — a dissolution of the separate self into something larger, a merging with another being that ends the terrible isolation of individual existence. This longing, he says, is at the root of three things: physical eroticism, emotional love, and religious experience. All three are, at their core, attempts to escape discontinuity. To breach the wall between the self and the other. To touch, however briefly, the continuity that death alone can fully restore.

Now consider what Jeffrey said, in his own words, about why he did what he did.

“It made me feel like they were a permanent part of me.”

“I wanted to keep them with me as long as possible, even if it meant just keeping a part of them.”

“I could completely control a person — a person that I found physically attractive — and keep them with me as long as possible.”

This is not the language of hatred. This is not even, primarily, the language of desire in the conventional sense. This is the language of someone trying — in the most extreme and catastrophic way imaginable — to solve the problem Bataille identified. The problem of discontinuity. The unbearable separateness of being a self.

Jeffrey did not want to destroy. He wanted to fuse. He wanted continuity. He wanted the boundary to disappear. Bataille writes that eroticism is, at its core, the attempt to substitute for individual isolated discontinuity a feeling of profound continuity. Jeffrey’s words are that theory spoken aloud — not as philosophy, but as confession.

The Thin Line Between a Kiss and Cannibalism

Bataille’s most unsettling argument — and the one most directly relevant to Jeffrey — is about what he calls the logic of eroticism pushed to its extreme.

Physical eroticism, he argues, is already a form of violation. The erotic act dissolves the boundaries of the self. It is, at its most fundamental, an attempt to break the separateness of two discontinuous beings — to achieve, however briefly, a state of fusion. He writes that the whole business of eroticism is to destroy the self-contained character of the participants. Nakedness, he says, is the first gesture of this dissolution: the removal of the barriers that maintain discontinuity. What follows is a temporary merging, a momentary continuity, before the boundaries are restored and the two people are separate again.

He then asks: what happens when this logic is pursued without limits?

The Marquis de Sade, Bataille notes, defined murder as the pinnacle of erotic excitement. Bataille does not celebrate this. He analyses it. He says that the destructive element pushed to its logical conclusion does not necessarily take us out of the field of eroticism. That if the drive behind eroticism is the dissolution of the separate self — the achievement of continuity — then death is, in a terrible sense, its ultimate fulfilment. Death is the only truly permanent dissolution of discontinuity. Death makes the bounded self continuous with everything again.

This is the thin line. Between the kiss — which reaches across the discontinuity toward the other — and the extreme that Jeffrey enacted, there is a difference of degree, not of kind. Both are movements toward the same impossible thing. Both are attempts to end the isolation that Bataille says defines human existence. The kiss fails, as all such attempts must fail — the boundary returns, the two people are separate again, the discontinuity is restored. Jeffrey’s attempts failed too, in the same way, which is perhaps why they escalated. Each time the boundary came back. The continuity was lost. The person was gone and Jeffrey was alone again in Cell 213.

De Sade himself wrote: “There is no better way to know death than to link it with some licentious image.” Bataille uses this to illustrate the connection between eroticism and death that most people refuse to look at directly. Jeffrey lived inside that connection. He did not choose it. It was given to him — by what combination of neurology, trauma, and chance we do not fully know — and he could not find his way out of it.

Taboo and Transgression: The Desire Created by the Prohibition

One of Bataille’s most radical arguments is about the relationship between taboos and desire. We tend to think of taboos as simply prohibitions — things we are forbidden from doing. Bataille argues that this misses the essential dynamic. Taboos, he says, do not suppress desire. They create it.

He writes: “A transgression is not the same as a back-to-nature movement; it suspends a taboo without suppressing it. Here lies the mainspring of eroticism and of religion too.”

The taboo and the transgression need each other. The prohibition is what makes the transgression possible, what gives it its weight and its charge. Without the taboo, there is no transgression — only an act. The law is not the enemy of the desire; it is its precondition. The sacred and the forbidden are, for Bataille, the same thing seen from different angles.

He illustrates this with religious cannibalism. In certain archaic practices, he writes, the eating of human flesh is both the most forbidden act and the most sacred. The taboo does not create the taste of the flesh — but it stands as the reason the ritual cannibal consumes it. The prohibition is precisely what makes the act holy. The pious cannibal knows full well that this is forbidden; knowing the taboo to be fundamental, he violates it. The desire and the law are inseparable.

Jeffrey understood this, at some level, without ever having read Bataille. He knew that what he desired was forbidden. He fought it for years — the long years at his grandmother’s house, the Bible reading, the missionaries he sent money to, the genuine attempt at control. The awareness that it was wrong was not separate from the desire. It was part of it. The boundary was not an obstacle. It was, in Bataille’s terms, the very thing that made the desire what it was.

Sacrifice and the Sacred: The Baptism

Bataille draws an extended comparison between the erotic act and sacrifice. In sacrifice, he argues, the victim’s death reveals continuity to the witnesses. The discontinuous being is destroyed and in its place what remains — what the spectators experience in the silence that follows — is the continuity of all existence. Death dissolves the particular back into the universal. The bounded self becomes unbounded. This, Bataille says, is the sacred.

He writes: “A violent death disrupts the creature’s discontinuity; what remains, what the tense onlookers experience in the succeeding silence, is the continuity of all existence with which the victim is now one.”

And then there is this: in May 1994, Jeffrey Dahmer was baptised in a steel tub inside Columbia Correctional Institution by Reverend Roy Ratcliff. He was convicted of seventeen murders. He had been in prison for two years. He would be dead in six months.

Jeffrey had arrived, by the end of his life, at something that Bataille’s framework can help us understand. He had been pursuing continuity through one path his entire adult life — the only path available to the thing in him that needed it. In prison, with Ratcliff visiting weekly, reading the Bible, discussing death and redemption and whether he deserved to continue living, he found another path to the same place. Religious eroticism, in Bataille’s terms, is the pursuit of continuity through the sacred — the dissolution of the self not through physical transgression but through union with something beyond individual existence.

Jeffrey told Ratcliff that he sometimes wondered whether he was sinning against God by continuing to live. He had internalized his own discontinuity as the deepest problem of his existence. The baptism — the immersion, the dissolution, the emergence — was perhaps the first time he had tried to reach continuity in a way that did not destroy another person in the process.

Bataille writes that the paths toward continuity vary. Their object, he says, has a great variety of aspects. Jeffrey had spent his life on one path. In his last year he tried another.

Where Bataille’s Theory Has Limits

It would be dishonest to use Bataille’s framework without acknowledging where it becomes insufficient.

Bataille’s analysis of transgression is ultimately descriptive. He is tracing the logic of certain human impulses — mapping the terrain between the sacred and the forbidden, between desire and death. He is not excusing. He is understanding. And understanding, as this memorial has always argued, is not the same as condoning.

But there is a dimension that Bataille’s theory of transgression does not fully account for, and it is the most important one: consent. Bataille writes about eroticism as a mutual dissolution. The sacrifice, even in its most archaic forms, was performed within a collective ritual framework. The transgression operated within a structure, however violent, that held some meaning for those involved.

Jeffrey’s victims did not choose dissolution. They did not consent to become part of someone else’s search for continuity. They were people with their own discontinuities, their own desires for continuity, their own inner worlds every bit as rich and real as Jeffrey’s. They were not symbolic victims in a ritual. They were Steven, James, Richard, Anthony, Raymond, Edward, Ernest, David, Curtis, Errol, Tony, Konerak, Matt, Jeremiah, Oliver, Joseph — and the first, Steven Hicks, eighteen years old, hitchhiking home from a concert.

Bataille helps us understand the logic of what Jeffrey did — the philosophical structure of the impulse, the deep human need it expressed in its most catastrophic form. He does not, and cannot, make it acceptable. The theory illuminates. It does not absolve.

Why This Matters

The reason to read Jeffrey Dahmer through Bataille is not to aestheticise what he did or to find it philosophically elegant. It is because the alternative — treating Jeffrey as simply monstrous, as categorically other, as something outside the human — is both intellectually dishonest and, ultimately, more dangerous.

Bataille wrote at the beginning of Erotism: “The human spirit is prey to the most astounding impulses. Man goes constantly in fear of himself. His erotic urges terrify him.” He was not writing about serial killers. He was writing about everyone. The impulses Jeffrey enacted at their most extreme — the desire for fusion, the longing for continuity, the relationship between desire and death, the terrible pull of the forbidden — are not alien to human nature. They are human nature, at its edges, in its darkest expression.

Jeffrey himself said it: “I don’t think there was something that happened that made me like this. Because this was always just how I was.” He was not describing a monster. He was describing a person whose inner life had taken a particular shape — one that Bataille’s philosophy, for all its difficulty and discomfort, helps us see more clearly than almost any other framework available to us.

Understanding that is not forgiveness for what was done. But it is the beginning of the kind of comprehension that might, one day, mean that someone like Jeffrey — someone carrying that particular configuration of need and isolation and desire — finds a different path before the irreversible moment arrives.

That seems worth understanding.

Sources: Georges Bataille, Erotism: Death and Sensuality (City Lights Books, 1986, translated Mary Dalwood); Jeffrey Dahmer, Inside Edition interview (1993); Jeffrey Dahmer, Dateline NBC interview with Stone Phillips (1994); Roy Ratcliff, Dark Journey Deep Grace (2011); Brian Masters, The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer (1993).

Read George Bataille here:
Bataille_Georges_Erotism_Death_and_SensualityDownload

Doing a Dahmer: The Hidden Humour of Jeffrey Dahmer

There is a moment in Jeffrey Dahmer’s 1992 FBI interview that almost nobody talks about. He has spent hours describing, in flat, cooperative detail, the murders of seventeen men. The detective has asked him about dismemberment, cannibalism, necrophilia, acid baths, skulls in lockers. And at the very end of this extraordinary session, as the tape is about to stop, Jeffrey says:

“OK, thanks for the muffins and the book.”

He had been eating muffins throughout. He thanks them on the way out like it was a pleasant meeting.

This is Jeffrey Dahmer’s humour: quiet, dry, completely interior, and almost always invisible unless you’re paying very close attention. It was never performed for a crowd. It never announced itself. It simply existed — a private, flickering thing in a man who kept almost everything private.

Understanding it is one of the most human ways into understanding him.

“Doing a Dahmer” — The Performance of Otherness

Jeffrey’s classmates at Revere High School in Bath, Ohio, remembered something they called “doing a Dahmer.” He would twist his body into an awkward shape, contort his face, and walk with a lurching, exaggerated gait — a deliberate imitation of someone with a developmental disability. It was strange, unexpected, and apparently very funny. The other kids loved it. They asked him to do it again.

What’s interesting is what this tells us. Jeffrey was not popular in any conventional sense — he was withdrawn, solitary, a drinker by his sophomore year, keeping the things that mattered to him entirely to himself. But this performance, this physical comedy, gave him a social currency he couldn’t access any other way. It was a mask that worked precisely because it was so obviously a mask. He was showing people something deliberately false in order to hide everything that was true.

Psychologically, this is a classic function of humour in isolated individuals — what researchers sometimes call humour as social camouflage. By making people laugh, Jeffrey controlled what they saw. He gave them a version of himself to engage with, while the real version remained untouched and unseen behind it. The joke was always, on some level, on them. They thought they were watching him be ridiculous. They had no idea what they were actually looking at.

Bleating, Seizing, Screaming — The Classroom

The “doing a Dahmer” walk was not his only act. In class, Jeffrey performed a wider repertoire of stunts — bleating like a sheep, faking epileptic seizures, screaming out random things in the middle of a lesson, and performing impressions of people with cerebral palsy. He presented himself, in general, as a sort of class clown, the bizarre kid who could always be relied upon to do something unexpected.

But there is a crucial detail in the accounts of those who were there: his classmates usually laughed at him rather than with him. His sense of humour was too dark, too strange, too far outside what anyone was comfortable with. He was funny in a way that made people uneasy. They laughed because they didn’t know what else to do.

This distinction matters. Jeffrey wasn’t a class clown in the ordinary sense — someone who performs to belong. He performed in a way that guaranteed he would never quite belong. The stunts were too far. The humour was too weird. And the result was the same as always: he was watched, he was noticed, and yet he remained completely alone in the middle of it. The laughter surrounded him and didn’t touch him.

Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back

There was a neighbour in Bath who used to watch Jeffrey walk to school from a window. Jeffrey was aware of being watched. And so he developed a walk — two steps forward, three steps back, a lurching, backwards shuffle that got him nowhere fast. He kept it up for the entire time he knew he was being observed.

Nobody asked him about this. He never explained it. But it is one of the most revealing small details in the entire story.

Here was a teenager so acutely conscious of being watched that he turned observation itself into a private joke. Rather than performing normality for the neighbour’s benefit — as most self-conscious teenagers would — he did the opposite. He made himself impossible to read. You want to watch me? Fine. Watch this. The confusion on the neighbour’s face was the punchline, enjoyed entirely alone.

This is humour as control. As a young man who felt profoundly out of control in almost every area of his life — his parents’ disintegrating marriage, his sexuality, the fantasies pressing at him from inside — the ability to make someone else confused and uncertain must have been quietly satisfying. A small power in a life that felt powerless.

“I Always Wanted to Do That to a Human”

In 1978, a high school friend named Mike Costlow visited Jeffrey at the Bath Road house after a night of drinking and smoking marijuana. At some point Costlow noticed several stuffed animals around the room and asked about them. Jeffrey replied simply: “It’s taxidermy. I used to do taxidermy.”

Later that same day, when Costlow brought the subject up again, Jeffrey said quietly: “I always wanted to do that to a human.”

Costlow and his friend were stunned. They said, “You’re sick,” and brushed it off. They thought he was joking. He was, after all, known for his bizarre and twisted sense of humour. It was just another example of that. The kind of thing Jeffrey said.

This was the summer of 1978 — the same summer Steven Hicks was murdered at that house. Jeffrey had already done it. And nobody heard it.

This is perhaps the darkest version of Jeffrey’s humour — the moment where the joke and the confession were the same sentence, and the punchline was that no one would believe it. The armour of “he’s just being weird” was so effective that even the truth, spoken plainly, was dismissed as another performance. He had learned, long before, that the best place to hide something is in plain sight.

The Muffins

Back to those muffins.

The FBI interview of August 13, 1992 was conducted at Columbia Correctional Institution by a Special Agent and a detective from the Hollywood, Florida Police Department. They were there to investigate Jeffrey’s possible connection to the disappearance of Adam Walsh. The interview is extraordinary — Jeffrey is cooperative, candid, almost eager to help. He answers every question in the same flat, considered tone he used for everything.

At some point during the interview, someone brings muffins. Jeffrey eats them. The interview continues — murder, cannibalism, the army, Florida, his grandmother. More muffins, apparently. At the very end, the tape concludes, and Jeffrey’s last recorded words in that session are a polite, genuine thank you for the muffins and the book they brought him.

The detective, for his part, had his own moment of dry humour. When the subject of alcohol tolerance came up, he interjected: “I’m a cheap date.” Jeffrey responded naturally, completely at ease — two people making a small human joke in the middle of one of the most surreal conversations imaginable.

What does it mean that Jeffrey Dahmer could eat muffins and make small talk during a confession to mass murder? Clinically, it speaks to the extreme compartmentalisation that psychiatrists noted throughout his case — the ability to hold horror and ordinariness in separate rooms of the mind, moving between them without apparent friction. But it also speaks to something more specific about his humour. He was genuinely, consistently, quietly pleasant in conversation. Detective Dennis Murphy, who spent sixty hours taking his confession after the arrest, said he appreciated Jeffrey’s frankness and lack of guile. The muffins fit perfectly. He was just… a man eating muffins and being polite. As he always had been.

The Helicopter

In 1993, journalist Nancy Glass interviewed Jeffrey for Inside Edition. At some point during their conversation, Jeffrey asked her casually if she had seen the movie that was on television the night before. He couldn’t remember the title. He made a helicopter gesture with his finger, rotating it slowly in the air.

The one with the helicopter.

He was in prison for seventeen murders. He had been there for two years. And he was making small talk about a television movie, illustrated with a finger helicopter, exactly as any ordinary person might do after a slow evening in front of the TV.

This is perhaps the most disarming of all the humour — not a joke exactly, just the total, baffling ordinariness of it. The gap between what Jeffrey Dahmer was supposed to be and what he actually was in that moment is so vast it becomes almost comic. Nancy Glass, facing one of the most notorious killers in American history, got a finger helicopter and a question about last night’s TV.

“Ha Ha” — The Letters

When Jason Moss, a criminology student, corresponded with Jeffrey in prison, Jeffrey’s letters were described as gracious and scrupulously polite. But there was also this, in his final letter to Moss:

“Just don’t forget about me when your school work is done, ha ha.”

Written out like that — ha ha — in a letter from a man who almost never wrote to anyone, who knew his letters were extraordinarily rare, who was serving 936 years. Ha ha. The lightness of it is startling. He knew exactly how to use levity. He deployed it sparingly and precisely, which is what made it land.

The Séance

And then there is the séance. In the summer of 1978 — with Steven Hicks’s remains still in the crawlspace beneath his feet — Jeffrey invited classmates to the Bath Road house and told them it was haunted. He staged the whole thing. He told them there was a spirit that could be summoned. The lights went off. Something moved. Lynn screamed.

Was that funny to Jeffrey? Almost certainly, in some private way. It had all the elements his humour loved: misdirection, control of information, a performance that was entirely false concealing something that was entirely real, and the confusion of others enjoyed in silence.

“Chunky. Delicious and Tasty.” — Prison

Prison brought a different kind of humour — or so some accounts suggest. According to multiple sources, Jeffrey reportedly told fellow inmates and guards “I bite,” then watched their nervous reactions with quiet, private satisfaction. He allegedly moulded his prison food into shapes resembling body parts and used ketchup as blood, leaving the results on his tray to unsettle the men around him. And according to Reverend Roy Ratcliff himself, Jeffrey put up a poster on his cell wall advertising a “Cannibals Anonymous” meeting.

Then there is the account from an anonymous fellow inmate’s memoir. On the day Jeffrey arrived at Columbia Correctional Institution, the noise in the cell block was immediate and relentless — jeers, threats, questions shouted through the bars. “Did the male parts taste good?” “Do you prefer dark meat or white meat?” Jeffrey said nothing. For hours, nothing. The taunts escalated, got louder, cruder. Jeffrey remained completely silent in Cell 1.

Then, after supper, one inmate shouted: “Hey, Jeff, how’s the corpse?”

A pause. Then, much to everyone’s surprise, from Cell 1:

“Chunky. Delicious and tasty.”

The ward went quiet.

It is worth noting that not everyone accepts these accounts. A lawyer who worked closely with Jeffrey in prison disputed the taunting behaviour entirely, saying it simply wasn’t his style. And there is something that doesn’t quite fit — the Jeffrey described by Detective Murphy, by Reverend Ratcliff, by the FBI agents who interviewed him, was consistently quiet, polite, and contained. The elaborate food sculptures and the constant taunting feel almost theatrical for a man who preferred his humour invisible.

What is consistent, though, is the Cannibals Anonymous poster. That feels entirely like him — not aggressive, not performed for an audience, just a quiet, private joke pinned to a wall in a cell, amusing exactly one person. The person it was designed to amuse.

The Psychology of It

What all of these moments share is not cruelty — none of Jeffrey’s humour was cruel in the conventional sense. It was never mockery of others’ pain or weakness. It was always interior, always deflecting, always about controlling what was seen.

Psychologist and author Brian Masters noted that Jeffrey was “not good at coping with disappointment” — that the losses of his childhood had left him with a profound difficulty with vulnerability. Humour, for him, was armour. Not loud, aggressive armour but the quiet kind — the kind that keeps people at a comfortable distance while appearing to bring them close. The kind that lets you eat muffins and make small talk while carrying something impossible.

Detective Patrick Kennedy, who worked his case, put it simply: “He could be engaging, he could be bright, witty, he could make jokes. He was able to fool a lot of people.” But it wasn’t quite fooling people either — or not only that. It was also just… him. Jeffrey Dahmer, finding the small absurdity in things, keeping it to himself, letting it out in carefully measured doses to the people around him.

There is also, in all of it, a profound loneliness. The classroom stunts were performed to a room that laughed uncomfortably and kept its distance. The two-steps-back walk was performed for an audience of one — himself. The helicopter gesture was an attempt at ordinary human connection. The ha ha in the letter was a man trying, in the only way he knew, to be light. To be likeable. To be, for a moment, just a person talking to another person about nothing in particular.

He was, as those who knew him consistently noted, genuinely pleasant company. Quiet, polite, a good listener, occasionally funny in a dry and unexpected way. His grandmother loved him. The detectives who spent sixty hours with him respected him. The FBI agent who interviewed him believed him completely and found him totally cooperative.

That person — the muffin eater, the helicopter mime, the boy walking backwards to confuse the neighbour, the teenager bleating like a sheep in the middle of class — was as real as everything else. Maybe more real than anything else. Because the darkness in Jeffrey Dahmer was something he fought against, hid from, tried to outrun for years. But the dry wit, the quiet deflection, the private joke enjoyed alone — that was just him.

That was just Jeffrey.

Sources: Brian Masters, The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer (1993); Jason Moss, The Last Victim (1999); FBI Interview Transcript, Columbia Correctional Institution, August 13, 1992; Anonymous Inmate Memoir; Biography.com; Detective Patrick Kennedy, Channel 5 interview; Mike Costlow, Cleveland Plain Dealer interview.