by Ian Brady
All these years to think and the victims are not in the book.
There’s a genius to this book and I’ve fucked up badly by being any part of it. One definition of prurience: Kind, maybe not asking for it. Another definition. Amends, not believing but begging.
This infernal definition of correct. What little you believed when you didn’t know shit.
Brady ‘wants to catch serial killers’ (BBC 10/18/2001)
The Moors murderer Ian Brady claims he can help the police track down serial killers.
The extraordinary offer is made in his book The Gates of Janus, just published in the United States, and now being offered for sale online.
The 300-page book is Brady’s analysis of serial killing is based on his own experiences as one of Britain’s most notorious murderers.
In the 1960s, together with his accomplice Myra Hindley, he tortured and killed four children and buried them on the moors above Manchester. He also murdered a teenager with an axe.
Brady, who is now 63, is a patient at the top-security Ashworth Hospital, who insisted on seeing a copy of the book before it was distributed in Britain.
BBC News Online has obtained an advance copy from the American publishers, who are hoping the title will soon be on sale in the UK, priced at £17.99.
Brady says it is not intended to be a textbook, but he believes he can assist the police in finding the perpetrators of such crimes.
He writes: “It is a modest manual for helping to track and capture the greatest and most dangerous animal in existence: the human predator.”
But he says the book is not an apology for the crimes he committed, and he makes no expression of remorse within its pages.
“To whom should I apologise and what difference would it make to anyone?” he asks.
“You contain me till death in a concrete box that measures eight by ten and expect public confessions of remorse as well?
“Remorse is a purely personal matter, not a circus performance.”
The appearance of the book in Britain will dismay the family of one of Brady’s victims, John Kilbride. His brother, Danny, is urging bookshops not to stock it, and appealing to the public not to buy it.
The American publisher, Feral House, has already received hate mail. But the company argues that the book may help criminologists to understand the minds of killers like Ian Brady.70
In her evidence Dr. Logan considered this situation in detail. She explained the steps which she had taken to ensure that she had as much information as possible on which to form her opinions. She considered that it would have been desirable to have been able to interview Mr. Brady. In cross-examination she said that she considered an interview to be “a definite asset.” She pointed out that in evaluating an interview, one must be aware of the interviewee’s self-perception and that one should avoid relying exclusively on such self-report. This is particularly in point for Mr. Brady as he has been found to be inaccurate on a number of occasions. She submitted that “some form of distortion must be assumed to exist in all forensic interviews until it is disproven because the client may restrict or control the information they provide or manipulate the practitioner in order to gain some form of advantage.” She continued, “As a consequence, evaluations must be substantially informed by collateral sources of information and multiple methods of assessment.”
Questions were kept to a minimum by both counsel and were directed to the important issues of the case. Unfortunately Mr. Brady found difficulty in answering those questions directly and rather diverted to refer to matters which were not directly to the point. This occurred repeatedly which left the Tribunal without a clear understanding of his point of view on some matters. The Tribunal will refer to this in greater detail especially when dealing with the issue of the suitability of prison.
Prior to sentence he had been subject to mental health examination. An entry in the Chronology dated 28th March 1966 by Dr. Lindsay Neustatter, Senior Physician in Psychological Medicine commented “It is possible that it [difficulty in expressing himself] was an evasiveness that accounted for his rather oddly worded answers.” He also commented that a diagnostic label was difficult; “a ruthless individual, cold and unemotional, without conscience or remorse; …he showed a pathological admiration of power and unscrupulousness.”
Possible that his whittling education requires him to convince himself of possibilities, present and past. Becoming reality. Frustrating theories and irritating the constant maddening lack of peaceful proof. The requirement coming from the outside definition of what the man looks like, sounds like what he’s always doing to himself. Unconsciously but necessarily. He impresses himself with what he finds impressive. Dissolving into the form of insanity rather than the form of success he latches on to display to his judges and mirrors. His plans put to the theory denounce him as weak when he is desperate for bravery. When one shouldn’t follow the other, an intelligent man wouldn’t think of himself as intelligent. Intelligent means what exactly? A bunch of morons willing to give you the benefit of the doubt a bit quicker than they’ve become used to.
Following his conviction he was transferred to Durham Prison. A year later Dr. Westbury wrote, “…differentiates himself from the norm and considers himself to be unique…Some of the superficial manifestations of his personality, particularly his apparent lack of affection and vagueness about his planning, carry the suggestion of a possibility of schizophrenia at first sight, but I found no evidence of the existence of any psychotic or neurotic illness and am firmly of the opinion that at the moment there is no mental illness.”
On 28th January 1970 a Medical Officer wrote, “My view of Brady remains as it has done since I first knew him before his trial. He is physically fit, of reasonably good intelligence and free from mental illness. He is, however a schizoid psychopath of utter untruthfulness who has the rather unusual ability in this type of personality of dissociating himself from the crimes of which he has been convicted….increasingly I feel that it is a symptom of the terrifying intensity of his psychopathy, and that he is not defending against recalling his offences but that, as far as he is concerned, they fail to rise above his mental horizon.” The Officer went on to advise that the appropriate place for Mr. Brady, “for a period anyway” is a “Special hospital” on the grounds of psychopathic disorder. He concluded, “he is a psychopathic personality to an extreme and pathological degree.”
Brady eventually created himself psychotic. His “will” was destined to turn into madness. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a stubborn drive or a mission or a point or, even, an easy way out. The tortured tortures himself; may think he deserves what he can view from all sides simultaneously and takes nothing from it but performance. Makes up memory. Imagines what happened backwards and forwards all at once, at the very same time. Like masturbating. You weren’t going to enjoy it anyway; all that noise from the confused past. The torture isn’t for the families, it depletes Brady. They don’t deserve the worry they don’t know enough to define.
Dr. Reid on 10th June 1983 expressed the view, “I think Mr. Brady must be regarded as a schizoid personality, cold, distant, unemotional and with an air of perverted arrogance, very probably enmeshed in a basis of paranoid thinking.”
Whatever happens now, it was clear to those who were paid to keep him that in 1983, he either became deranged or was to be considered as such. He somehow pulled out of that. Most likely on his own. He tells this over and over to the luckless staff. The problems of the past landed him in Ashworth with proof demanding help. Stayed, now, shown evidence, ever since. “Any transfer seems to have been contemplated on the basis of personality disorder rather than paranoid schizophrenia. This may have affected the opinions of some who examined him both before and after this period.” The limited drug trials that included Thorazine and the medical treatments that one side bitched at while the other recorded improvement. A very difficult argument to win when being asked for conclusive proof in the middle of a prolonged pro
cess.
Mr. Brady disputes that he has any mental disorder and in particular disputes that he is or ever has been suffering from schizophrenia. He asserts that his behaviour in about 1985 was a charade. He claims that the symptoms he was exhibiting were feigned to obtain his transfer to hospital. The Tribunal considered that assertion is relevant to a number of issues. It may affect the weight which should be attached to his evidence generally. It may also affect the Tribunal’s approach of the interviews which have been carried out since 2003 by Dr. Grounds, Mr. Glasgow and Professor Gournay. The evidence comes from Mr. Brady. None of the medical witnesses supports that contention. He was questioned about the issue by Miss Grey Q.C. and she put to him “Hallucinations, delusions, you being distressed, banging your fists against the side of the cell, do you accept you were ill at that time?” He replied, “Have you ever heard of Stanislavski?” It was later confirmed that he was referring to “method acting.” His reason for acting was to obtain a transfer. When questioned by Dr. Boyd on this issue, he said that the situation in Gartree was intolerable but he understood that Ashworth was a progressive regime. He expressed it in these words: “It wasn’t a political dustbin. It wasn’t a place where they forced anti-psychotic medication on you to embalm you into a zombie.” He continued that it offered him educational opportunities. He went on to say that Dr. MacCulloch and Dr. Hunter had grasped that he was feigning illness as he had spoken freely, and he implied that others including the Directors, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists also knew. When questioned by Dr. Boyd about the length of time he had managed to act an illness, he replied, “well you have to live the part and that’s the hard part… it has to be sustained. This was sustained over a period of approximately 18 months.” He was asked by Miss Chadderton how he had faked the symptoms. He said that he had seen the symptoms whilst working at Wormwood Scrubs. He had asked other prisoners about medication and symptoms. The Tribunal also considered the relevant entries in the history. In support of his assertion it could be contended that he had some experience of observing the symptoms of mental disorder from his time on the prison wings especially at HMP Wormwood Scrubs and may therefore be in a position to know what he should feign.
Doctors who are trained to watch prisoners torture themselves. Watch them plead against themselves. Form opinions on schizophrenia spotted as applications. Starting with signs of disparate arguments within a single body, coming at inconvenient times from the very same mouth that chooses not to talk about where he’s been placing his mouth when he shuts up talking. Perhaps this is the part he actually writes about. And, yet, how sublimely tragic to state that he might even know he’s sick. Doesn’t know if he’s not saying what he’s saying. Then moving from thought to fact when it’s written down in front of him to be reread. Both sides. He isn’t like them. He acts like them. Knows what is being asked from him. Turns himself into a superhero like he thinks he wants. Imagines they agree. Imagine that reality exists to all and can be explained to those open to being convinced. To any right-thinking doctor, it would be a comfort to imagine that Brady’s been torturing himself. The doctors re-imagining life romantically, hopefully. They add: all along. This has been happening since he was a child. Asking: Hasn’t it? Answers. Lies. Confesses. He’s been lying so he can return to where he was. Before he was believed. Misunderstands. Says he understood. You don’t know that you’re retarded, poor thing, honestly, it would be so much sadder for those watching if you knew you were different.
Gates of Janus:
Returning to forensic matters, paranoid schizoids are, by definition, less predictable than psychopaths, and are therefore, in some instances, more dangerous.
Many are lost in a whirlwind cycle of hallucination and grand delusion, tranquil and normal one moment, raging and violent the next. Beyond accurate prognosis, they can nevertheless be stabilised to an effective degree by drug therapy, but on the whole must be regarded as an almost permanent potential menace to themselves and others.
Sometimes many appear normal for such lengthy periods that one becomes careless and relaxes—then the explosion of violence catches you off-balance. Yet certain other schizoids are comparatively harmless, reacting mainly to their imaginary inner experiences rather than their surroundings.
Many under strictly supervised medication can be kept as normal as the next person. But one still has to remain alert for those who decide they no longer need medication and surreptitiously spit it out.
I personally consider psychotics the most interesting. When not in a state of cyclical manic depression, or lost in a schizophrenic fugue, they are energetic in mind and body, swinging from tears to laughter, constantly bubbling with ideas and startling momentary insights, treating morals and legalities as malleable playthings. They often exhibit a high sense of absurdity combined with acute observation of man’s foibles. This invariably results in a cavalier, bold and arrogant attitude to all matters—including murder.
They ‘view the world as from the edge of a far star.’ Should they respect or learn from the conduct of their sane mentors, who exemplify and justify tribal mayhem? Over fifty million people died in World War Two—it reads more like a league table than an Everest of bodies.
How many centuries would you suppose it would take for freelance ‘criminals’ and ‘madmen’ to equal the numerical carnage the ‘law-abiding’ and ‘sane’ can achieve in such a comparatively short space of time? One should cultivate discrimination in accepting or respecting one’s moral ‘superiors.’ So often they are certainly not.71
In his evidence in chief Dr. Collins referred to his First Opinion in which he had set out the record of 25 entries of Mr. Brady appearing to have been talking to himself from June 2008 to January 2012. He acknowledged that people, particularly elderly people talk to themselves. He had omitted reports in which it appeared he may have been responding to the television or radio.
Within his book. Brady responding to the single salve monologue he rewrites from conversations. Uses quotes for silent support, backup, decontextualized lead he’s finding agrees with him. Better that he’s an old man thinking he’s got something to say, even when talking to the air. Cites his rights. And doesn’t recognize that his gorgeous violence and rarefied sexual degradations have been reduced to talking about using cereal and honey. Instead of confronting God and the great God-given evils available to those who dare, pleasure or regret, his intensive understanding of evil writhing and painful pleas for absent sympathy and irritating hard-ons and universal recognition, his responses are to continually argue that he was “provoked”:
Out of sight there was another patient who was reading a magazine. Dr. Collins made the point that the layout of the ward is such that Mr. Brady could not have seen the other patient from the telephone booth. After Mr. Brady had finished his call he went to the other patient and said, “You’re a fat fucking slug, you fat bastard, sat there.” The patient asked what Mr. Brady was talking about who responded by putting his pen between his knuckles making a fist around it and said, “Do you want to do something about it?” It was done in a threatening manner. At that stage members of staff intervened and Mr. Brady was asked to go to his room. As he was ushered through the ward he stopped to be abusive. The staff tried to calm him. He claimed that a patient had been throwing cereal around and smearing honey on chairs to annoy him. He exhibited serious aggression towards Mr. Sheppard which was noted as “baring his teeth and spitting.” He again pointed at Mr. Sheppard with his pen who had to take defensive action. He appeared to accuse Mr. Sheppard of provoking him into committing an assault.
This paranoia was observed by the Tribunal during the application for a hearing in public when he asserted that the Tribunal was politically motivated and not impartial. This was given as one of his reasons for applying for a hearing to the glorious listening open-minded rabble. Brady knows the press. Better than anyone writing about him. Works against him at the same time; his last chance to be heard is in speaking to an even less
impartial audience. Certainly not trustworthy. Calling him paranoid would actually be the “classic setup” Brady knows and is unable to battle with. In deference to Brady, the PR minds behind the government wouldn’t want Brady to be seen to be having an easy time, humanitarian issues included, being a PR issue. Sex offender restrictions being the single best-known example of advertising-driven laws used to ostensibly placate the public, curry favor, and attach identifiable names to popular and codified causes from sagging politicians.
Seen cynically, hopefully, Brady formulated and then foreshadowed his argument against the hospital in Gates of Janus. Seen compassionately, Brady has seen the looping argument against him dig and spit at him for decades.
You will note that I have kept this in general terms, as opposed to that of interrogating a serial killer exclusively. By and large the serial killer, like the socially sanctioned killer, regards himself as normal, except to the extent that he has transformed thought/fantasy into action.
Naturally an attitude indicating you regard him as an alien species will achieve naught except his regarding you similarly. In fact, even without given cause, the serial killer will at inception regard the interviewer as hostile anyway, by force of adversarial circumstance, and this dualistic defence mechanism is something the interviewer has to overcome.
Personally I could/can evaluate the integrity and calibre of a psychiatrist usually within the first ten minutes of a discussion, and decide whether to persevere or dismiss him/her as mechanistic.
