Inside the Mind of Jeffrey Dahmer: The Cannibal Killer (2024)

This review needs to start with one statement, and one that I think is very important; the author claims to have laid within this book the motivations and possible understandings of Dahmer and his crimes, and subsequently has lied to all his readers just in the premise of his book alone.
In order to give this review in a coherent manner, as I take notes while reading, I’m going to separate it into a few sections that I’ll label as I go. I’ve never had to write reviews on Google Docs before posting to Goodreads, but this book infuriated me so deeply within the last 20% of its page count that I feel the need to write everything out so everyone can understand just why this book does not deserve to be touted as “Inside the Mind of Jeffrey Dahmer.” Better put, this book is “The Recap of Jeffrey Dahmer and the Nonsensical Gripes of the Author”.

CLINICAL ISSUES
My first general issues stem, in all honesty, from the way this book is written. Like most serial killer biographies, it gives an account of Jeffrey as a child to his adulthood, chronicling his activities, his family, his environments, etc., and eventually his horrific crimes and what followed. That’s all fine and dandy, it’s to be expected, but in the prologue the author promises the building of a “layer cake”--in layman’s terms, a building of psychological assessment throughout different parts of his life to help try to understand his psyche.
This book parades itself as a look inside his mind. For reference, I have a very rudimentary understanding of psychology, having taken a basics class, a developmental class, and an abnormal psychology class all at the beginner’s collegiate level… And I was still sitting there, asking, “Why do I feel like you could be talking about so many psychological theories you haven’t mentioned?” A beginner should read a book looking into the mind of a killer and be looking up terms and theories, not proposing ones the author could have mentioned. Additionally, the closest thing to psychological theory in this book is the proposal of attachment theory for a brief moment. For a book on psychology, a lot of the runtime is solely devoted to the author explaining Jeffrey’s life in a very surface-level way, every once in a while interjecting with tangents and obvious statements of, “That probably made him sad.”
Now, skipping over the slight issues I have such as using the same quote from Dahmer twice about his parents’ divorce—this book is written by a man and that is clear. When discussing Joyce and Lionel, Jeffrey’s parents, the language used around Joyce is very accusatory, very cruel, saying she’s needy and neglectful, only diving into a few of her statements without so much as a note of sympathy. Lionel, however, seems to be treated more kindly, being written as a father concerned for how his own way of living had impacted Jeffrey. This goes without mentioning the author never touching upon how the sudden removal of Joyce and his younger brother from his life could have possibly affected young Jeffrey. So, not only does he blatantly harbor more dislike for Joyce (where they’re really both at fault), but he’s not even looking at big parts of the childhood that aren’t typically explored, which a book on psychology of a killer ought to.
Additionally, I feel that when you’re trying to see how things are affecting a subject, a writer must try to convey what it’s like to be that individual, rather than talking about that individual. It’s sort of the outside-looking-in versus trying to be in his shoes. The author very clearly does not take the in-depth approach; as previously mentioned, the information and “insight” (or lack thereof) is nothing new or even digging into psychology—into the mind.
I will also take a moment to point out that, despite this book clearly being a product of its time, I couldn’t for the life of me pinpoint when it was written. Despite the mentions of murderers incarcerated long after Dahmer and even the George Floyd case, the author also speaks about the DSM-III-R like it’s the current version of the DSM. Yes, it was the version out in 1980 and for a while thereafter, but it’s not the current edition, which ideally would be considered as psychology is an ever-evolving science… granted, I’ll talk more about that when I detail other gripes with this book.
As I said, the book moves on to his later lives, eventually entire sections being devoted to individual victims. There’s talk of his methodology, talk of the MO, mention of the trophies and cannibalism, yet there’s nothing more in-depth. In a book trying to dissect a serial killer’s psyche, one could mention how the consuming of others could have been seen as a man who tried to turn others into obedient zombies so they couldn’t leave as keeping his victims with him. There’s a treasure trove of abandonment issues, relationship issues, feeling like you can’t have people near you issues that could be explored. This was even referenced earlier in the book when Dahmer was a child and established that being with others was destruction, but, if I recall, that was a quote from another author that this author is referencing. Clearly, in terms of psychology, this author can only pull from others, but has nothing of note to contribute, nor does he try. I honestly feel I could write a better paper, and I’m just a 22-year-old autistic woman with only basic knowledge on most things in this case.
Now, when the author gets to the legal case, this is where the novel began to fall apart for me. I’ll continue on the more clinical aspects I didn’t like before moving to the rest. Firstly, the author spends a paragraph trying to explain the difference between murder and homicide in Wisconsin, as it seems to differ depending on which is used in court. The author says something along the lines of George Floyd’s death in 2020 being an example, but at the end of the paragraph adds, “But if you can somehow understand this topic, you’re better than me!” You’d think someone who is trying to explain a crucial element of a criminal case for the killer they’re writing about would take more time to try to understand it, let alone explain to his readers. Therefore, I am wholly convinced that whole section was just to name-drop George Floyd’s unfair death at the hands of cops just to add a sprinkle of recent in-real-life crime, though it feels completely unrelated to the current subject. He was also mentioned earlier when discussing the upheaval of the police force during the Dahmer case, but again, seemingly just to throw his name in there. I can’t say I approve of mentioning another case, especially one as horrific and disheartening as Floyd’s, seemingly just with the intention to have a name-drop, which seems callous. I know the author likes dark humor, but that is just crass.

PERSONAL ISSUES
The real meat and potatoes of this whole diatribe against this book stems from this topic. I was enjoying the book until the 80% mark, but then the author began to inject his own ideas into the court case itself, and, well… As respectfully as I can muster, this author is a jerk.
Throughout the book, there is no humanization of Jeffrey Dahmer at all which is completely understandable. Nobody wants to humanize a killer and cannibal, and rightfully he doesn’t deserve to be humanized, but when trying to look into psychology of a subject you need to humanize to be able to understand their motives and thinking a little more. I think that’s one of the biggest pieces of this book that doesn’t work. The author cannot for a moment try to get inside Jeffrey’s head, and therefore the entire premise of this book is a sham. Mostly, like I said, this book is a recap until the author begins spewing his own perspective, which is an entirely asinine perspective, if you ask me.
The author is a very condescending individual. Throughout the book, he uses the phrase, “Can you see Jeff now?” when trying to get the reader to envision how Jeffrey was feeling. First of all, most people would be angry if they lost their job and had no money, or sad if their parents were divorcing, or worried when cops walk into his home and he knows he’s done something. Hell, I worry if I see a cop and I haven’t done anything wrong. The phrase is seemingly used when the author says to himself, “Oh sh*t, I haven’t really mentioned what’s going on in Jeff’s head for a while now… uh… Okay, genius! I’ll just tell them how any ordinary person would react, but say it’s something specific to Jeff!” Can you see this author now? I certainly can: A man writing a book he has no business writing. He even admits he’s not a psychology expert, and neither am I, but…
Now we reach the part where I turned against this author. He’s not an expert in psychology, but is attempting to write a book on the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer. When you hit the last quarter of the book, though, the author readily expresses his disdain for psychology as a whole! The author, at the start of this train-wreck final quarter, says something along the lines of psychiatrists and psychologists, since science is not as factual as other sciences, are the least equipped to look at the criminal mind due to bias. I sat up and said, “Did you really just say that?” Dude, everyone in the court room has biases, and if those who study the known elements of psychology can’t have a professional stance on the mind, who the f*ck can?
It became apparent that the author has a disdain for those who study psychology as a whole. At one point, he mentions a criminal named Shawcross. To sum up, he was a murderer whose trial was rushed and plea deal was taken. He was sent to a psychiatric facility, and convinced the doctors he could be released and was not a danger. The author then says those to blame for his following killing spree are those who deemed him able to be released. Seriously? Don’t blame those in the system who rushed the trial to save money, who allowed the plea deal? You’re going to blame those who were, by your own admission, manipulated by a psychopath? The author makes a great deal pointing out how Dahmer and those like him are master manipulators, but wants to blame those who are manipulated rather than those who didn’t properly try and convict him on his heinous crimes? The same way his language made it clear he disliked Joyce but somewhat sympathized with Lionel, the same way his arguments reflect his own biases against the science of psychology. He makes it very clear while writing a book on psychology of a killer that he denounces psychology, calling it a pseudo-science and acting like it has no bearing in criminal trials and that psychiatrists are snake oil salesmen meant to pacify the masses. He makes it clear he thinks the insanity defense is stupid—which it is—but at the same time also says that psychiatry ought to not have a place in the courtroom. I feel like this is due to the notion that psychology is meant only as a means to get criminals off easily, which it often isn’t. The author seems to despise the insanity plea, not psychologists, but also appears to lump it together. He also mentions how psychologists positions can be swayed by whom they are employed, being defense or prosecution, and thus shouldn’t be trusted, but can’t the same be said of any individual? Lawyers, forensic experts, witnesses? So why are those studying psychology seemingly he only ones he calls out? Honestly, I think it’s because he dislikes a science where rules aren’t hard and fast, they aren’t set and written out without extenuating circ*mstances. Unfortunately, sir, psychology is unique to everyone, and can’t be summed up like a flow chart.
For someone writing a book delving into the mind of a killer while denouncing psychology, he also throws around diagnoses a lot. He keeps referring to Dahmer as a psychopath, but constantly mentions the ASPD diagnosis and the sociopath rhetoric. All of this makes sense, but for a book written in 2022, you think he’d know all those can’t be true at the same time, as the DSM-5 doesn’t allow it. I mean, maybe the rules were different in the 90s when the trial took place, but the fact of the matter is there doesn’t seem to be a consistency. Some arguments are pulled from modern-day papers, but others are pulled from outdated works like the DSM-III-R which were relevant at the time, but you can’t say both modern and past sources are correct.
I’d also like to point out one section where the author is discussing Phillip Resnick and his argument on “primary necrophilia”, disapproving of the “primary” part—which makes no sense other than contributing to his tangential ego-stroking. The primary most likely refers to how the necrophilia was the main goal, but pointing out his desire for live partners also erases the idea that Dahmer was insane and only after dead bodies, that he knew he could have live partners and chose to do all this… and the author makes it sound like Resnick is wrong with some roundabout logic hinging on the “primary”? He seems to disagree only to disagree with Resnick, even though the author takes a stance on Dahmer being a heartless manipulator, which Resnick is, in fact, arguing for. If this section was at all explained (such as the argument at hand and how the author disagrees with it), I would be able to better tell the author’s point, but as it stands it’s absolute nonsense just looking to disagree with the prosecution no less! If I recall, this is about page 175 and feels like the author is trying to sound superior to an expert, while not being a psychology expert, denouncing psychology as a whole, and also purporting this as a book on Jeffrey Dahmer’s psychology.
Now, back to the DSM. The author expresses dislike for the DSM for the same reason he dislikes psychiatrists; because there aren’t “set rules”. Dude, this is psychology, an imperfect, unique-to-each science. Different for everyone who is experiencing it, and everyone who is studying it. Why are you sh*tting on it while writing a book “inside the mind”? If anything is contradictory, it’s you writing this book while acting like you’re providing new insight, while also denouncing those who can provide insight. The author acts like psychology is a charlatan’s job because everyone has different ideas on it, biases, is “contradictory”, but you know what’s funny? Sometimes even gun evidence or witness accounts and other things can be contradictory, but like I said, this author doesn’t seem to take issue with all that.
Also, for someone putting Bible quotes in to bolster certain ideas around the case, good job comparing religion to the DSM, as religion has nothing to do with this besides an attempt to bolster your argument that “ideas” do not equal hard and fast rules, and therefore should be entirely dismissed.
This whole backwards logic on the author’s part can be experienced in the sections discussing Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist who took part in the trial. This section, filled almost entirely with quotes from Dietz himself, shows exactly what good psychiatrists can do in the courtroom: They can apart the methodology and where someone who couldn’t tell what the criminal’s doing differs from someone who can, but sure, author, just dismiss psychology entirely. In honesty, the author acts like psychology is a mere excuse, but never mentions how psychology can also convict someone. Imagine if the prosecution hadn’t talked about how Jeffrey had been pre-planning and thinking ahead with his murders. The insanity plea might have taken root! And, as mentioned previously, the author finds fault in psychologists disagreeing on Dahmer and says it’s a fault of the study entirely, though mentions before and after that Dahmer is a master manipulator and even purposefully told people different things.
In the final notes of the author’s view on this (the only moment where it would have been appropriate to inject his thoughts, by the way), he once again fails to really talk about Dahmer. He spends time comparing Dahmer to other similar killers and mentioning, for what seems like the hundredth time, his sado-sexual urges. When he finally begins to look back, he basically summarizes all the facts he’s spent the page-count rehashing, and then says, “Can one imagine what it must have felt like?” (Page 188). That’s the thing, sir. We aren’t supposed to imagine it, that’s what you should have written about. Then there’s the sudden mention of occult things and Satanism, which was only mentioned a total of one time before now, so briefly I almost forgot it entirely. Then more ego-stroking, mentioning how he’s interviewed many killers (though notably started the book mentioning he didn’t get to interview Dahmer). The entire last chapter is honestly just reminding the reader of what they read the whole time, acting like the author is providing inside into Jeffrey’s mind. I’ve provided more insight just by sitting in my room with my rudimentary understanding than any of these 200 and somewhat pages have. The author’s final assumption is basically, “He was a monster, psychiatrists might disagree with me, but he wasn’t insane.” Okay, so your whole argument isn’t “Why could this have happened, from different perspectives,” but instead is, “I’m going to write a biography, write the verdict as my argument, and act like I provided something new to the understanding of Jeffrey Dahmer.”
Oh, and he again expressed disdain for the “psycho-babble” used in Dahmer’s defense, but also throws in a jab that implies the psychiatrists took tax-payers’ money just to get him better lodgings when convicted. Don’t think about what other elements could have influenced the psychologists being brought in, just sh*t on them, because this is a book inside the mind of Dahmer so of course let us act like psychiatrists are just phonies parading themselves as knowledgeable… reminds me of someone, doesn’t it?

In short, this book is a waste of time and frankly my brain power. It claims in its own blurb that the author “seeks to understand the motivation, the amoral urges, the merciless horror…” but in the end is a pile of word vomit regurgitating every other biography on Dahmer that came before it, relying heavily on other peoples’ works and the author’s interactions with other serial killers, all the while providing nothing of true insight or note besides the author telling his readers, “I think I’m better than psychologists and you’ll fall for that summary hook line and sinker. Time to count my money!”
Thankfully I got this book for free on Amazon Unlimited, though truthfully this book isn’t even worth the mere thought of reading. This book isn’t inside the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer. It’s inside the ego of a writer who blatantly lied to sell books and nothing more.

I have been interested in crime and those who commit it for many years. Knowing what makes someone tick is fascinating don't you think?

One of the many reasons I enjoyed this book was the Hannibal lector quotes; "bowels in or bowels out?" and "I must confess to you, I am giving very serious thought to eating your wife inspector pazzi." I love Hannibal and have a tattoo based on the silence of the lambs 😊

One of the huge annoyances of this particular book is the author's habit of going off on tangents. Whilst I am aware of him mentioning this habit himself, it didn't make it any less annoying. I can completely understand drawing comparisons between Dahmer and other serial killers, but some of it was entirely irrelevant. The first chapter of the book had very little information on Dahmer or anything really relating to him except for the number of muscles a body has, litres of blood etc.

Then we move onto the relationship between his parents, conception of Jeff and the pregnancy itself. I have so many questions!

The crimes which Jeffrey committed were horrific and I cannot imagine the pain which he caused to so many people. With that being said, I do believe there were signs along the way that were repeatedly ignored.

If we begin by looking at his mother Joyce, a very self absorbed, manipulative woman. During her pregnancy with Jeff, she made no pretense of being happy. She hated being pregnant and how it made her feel. She was on a total of 27 tablets per day including anti depressants, progesterone and growth hormones. It is also said that there would be 'episodes' where Joyce would become rigid and foam at the mouth. When this happened she was then injected with barbiturates. What in the world?! I am fully aware that medical knowledge in the 1980s was not what it is today, but it is blatantly obvious that this concoction of drugs had an effect on developing baby Jeff.

Additionally, Joyce needed constant reassurance and praise, ego stroking if you will. As the family had moved due to Lionel's job, Joyce felt like she wasn't Lionel's soul priority so she decided to take a walk on a winter's night, lie down in the snow and all in a night dress!

It seems pretty clear to me that Joyce had some form of mental health condition and most likely post partum depression. Not only did Jeff have to grow up with a manic and irrational mother, but he also witnessed numerous arguments and physical violence between his parents. It is believed that the violence didn't just stay between the parents as in Joyce's diary she recorded that she patted Jeff on the bottom twice at 9 months old for discipline reasons. How was this never questioned? What on earth could a 9 month old baby have done to deserve that punishment?

Joyce was sectioned in 1970 and filed for divorce from Lionel. In the divorce papers they both cited that the other neglected Jeffrey. After all of this I can only assume that Jeff's mother Joyce had a very negative impact on his upbringing. This leaves me with a few questions;
1) Why did she think that she would be able to cope with a second pregnancy and second child?
2) Why did Lionel agree to have a second child? Especially when he pondered if Joyce's co*cktail of pills had damaged Jeff.
3) Why did Joyce pretend to care when Jeff was murdered in prison but left him when he was alive and needed help?

Although I feel that Joyce had a huge part to play in Jeffrey's toxic behaviour, I feel that his father Lionel, had even more of an impact.

One of the most staggering revelations from Lionel was that he was in fact the one who had taught Jeffrey preservation techniques. Initially when questioned, Lionel lied and said it wasn't him. This immediately set alarm bells ringing for me. Who on earth shows a 10 year old that? Additionally, Lionel also thought that taking Jeff to remove the carcass of a dead animal underneath the house was a good idea! Not only did he bring the remains of said animal into the house, but he recalled Jeff playing with the bones, laughing and saying that they were like 'fiddlesticks'. At this stage, Jeff was around 4 or 5 years old.

With that being said, it was recorded that Jeff had a huge interest in animals, both alive and dead. Now, animals are an interest of many who then don't go on to become a serial killer, but I do feel that if Jeff had been supported and nurtured in the correct way then things may have been different.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Lionel waited until Jeffrey had been incarcerated for 15 murders (2 not accounted for in charges) before he admitted that he had also had disturbing and destructive behaviour related thoughts throughout his life! It begs belief! Furthermore, Jeff had started to consume alcohol and by 14 he was an alcoholic. The school, obviously concerned about Jeff turning up drunk and failing classes, informed Lionel. Most parents I know would have been absolutely livid, but Lionel just decided to have 'a talk' with Jeff, which as a typical teen, he ignored. At this time Lionel claimed that Jeff was already 'too addicted' so it didn't work. I feel that this was a lie to try and cover for the fact that Lionel didn't actually try to help Jeff.

Again, after reading all of the information, I have numerous questions;
1) Why did Lionel not listen to Jeff about his thoughts and feelings considering he saw that Jeff was having disturbing thoughts like he did?
2) How did he ever expect Jeff to fully open up about anything when Lionel stated the fact that Jeff being gay was repugnant?
3) How did he think that introducing a small child to dead animals and teaching him how to preserve them was normal, nevermind a good idea?

Now it's time to look at Jeff himself. A manic mother, an absent father and an inquisitive mind, where did it all go wrong? Like any other baby, Jeff deserved love and to be nurtured but unfortunately that wasn't the case.

After his arrest Jeff stated that as far back as 8 years old he remembered feeling alone, depressed and neglected. To me reading this as a mother, my heart broke. I can't imagine how he felt as a child knowing he wasn't wanted. This was also confirmed by Jeff's prison psychologist. It was also reported that he had unreal expectations of himself and wasn't in touch with reality.

In conclusion, I do feel that Jeff was doomed from conception. The co*cktail of medications and mental health issues of his parents have definitely had an impact, but due to the fact that his brain was cremated with the rest of his body we will never know for sure.

I also believe that Jeff displayed some behaviours which indicate some form of neuro divergence such as autism. My reasoning for this is the fact he was mainly alone, very few friends and struggled with communication. He desperately wanted friends and/or a companion but was unable to maintain relationships. The fact that Jeffrey committed such horrific crimes cannot be blamed on anyone else but him, but I do believe his parents have a lot to answer for.