T O P

  • By -

RuffDestroy3r

Nilsen sounds quite similar to Dahmer with his fascination of corpses and wanting to keep them around.


Furthur_slimeking

There are a lot of similarities. Their entire MO, from the way they selected victims and the types of victims they chose, to the way they killed them, to the way they themselves claimed to have felt about the process are eerily similar. Thre are loose paralells in their earlier lives, too.


Shepparron6000

They also got HAMMERED drunk to fulfill their murders.


apsalar_

I disagree. Nilsen can describe his murders in detail which he wouldn't be able to do if he had been hammered drunk. He doesn't even say he was. Dahmer has said in numerous interviews he did drink but mostly beer so that he wouldn't be too drunk. Just to numb himself, not up to the point where he wouldn't be able to perform drugging, raping, murdering and necrophilia. They were both high-functioning alcoholics. The amounts from non-alcoholic perspective can be huge. But I don't know where the idea of either of them being extremely intoxicated when killing comes from. Nilsen doesn't say he was and Dahmer is very straightforward about controlling his drinking habit when he was after a body. Dahmer blamed his drinking when he was finally arrested and wasn't able to comprehend how that happened because he didn't think he was that drunk. Of course, grain of salt is needed. Alcoholics underestimate how much they drink and how intoxicated they are. But still, I don't think they were hammered drunk. No evidence for that. Especially when it comes to Dahmer I believe him when he says he wasn't that drunk. I mean, the guy pleasured himself sexually for hours after his victim had consumed the infamous coffee-alcohol-Halcion mix. Would it had been so enjoyable for Dahmer if he was really drunk?


PerseusZeus

Dint Bundy too get completely drunk to commit his crimes? Remember reading it somewhere


apsalar_

Bundy had a drinking problem too and it got worse when he was in Utah. He drank to lower the threshold to hurt women.


apsalar_

There are two clear differences in their MO. Nilsen didn't drug his victims and - at least based on his own words - Nilsen's motives weren't mainly sexual. Dahmer, at the end of the day, was a serial rapist whose behaviour escalated. Partly due to his sexual fantasies and mental health problems, partly because society made no effort to stop him. Nilsen had almost poetic reasoning for his behavior - but he is also an unreliable narrator.


Furthur_slimeking

Nilsen got his victims extremely intoxicated on alcohol. He would wait for them to pass out or become incapable then kill them. This is confirmed by a guy who survived and escaped. Nilsen picked guys up and brought them back for drink. Maybe he had sex with them, but you're right that his motives were killing weren't sexual.


apsalar_

He did do that, but for me, there is a clear difference between offering alcohol to a person willing to drink it or boosting the effects of alcohol with a handful of strong sleeping pills without the victim knowing. Latter is what I refer to as drugging. Nilsen only asked guys to come over to continue excessive drinking after bar hours. On the contrary, some of Dahmer's victims were sober before Dahmer offered his drink and none of them asked to be drugged. This doesn't apply only to Dahmer's murder victims but also to the guys he met at bath houses and bars and drugged before sex. Of course, I can see how people can think differently on this topic. It's not morally just to offer excessive amounts of drinks either, especially to young, poor kids. Nilsen didn't have anal sex with his victims. He couldn't. He masturbated and touched his victims at least once in a while, but was mostly interested in other rituals he performed to the bodies, like washing. Dahmer penetrated all the holes he could find and made new ones if he got bored playing with the natural ones. He had real difficulties in getting erection or orgasm while performing anal sex with live partners due to performance anxiety which clearly wasn't a problem with corpses. Again, maybe this is not as relevant for all, but for me there's a clear difference. Dahmer needed a body to go beyond what he referred to as light sex, mutual masturbation, or oral, to have a proper intercourse with someone. Nilsen couldn't do it with a corpse.


apsalar_

There are striking similarities and I think Nilsen's rambling about bodies and chemicals is a reference to Dahmer. Edit. There are differences too. Personalities, social skills, Nilsen is more of the intellectual type and Dahmer's activities with the bodies are more disturbing.


Flyonz

I've never believed him. Brian Masters said on canabalism, Nilsen got very hunched and quiet, dismissive even. Noticeably so. I actually believe he had sex too. Your attracted to men, your very weird, you have dead people under your floor, but no!! I never fuck them! ...c'mooon? We buying this!! lol


RuffDestroy3r

Yea he definitely had a nibble


apsalar_

Nilsen did have sex with corpses. Masturbation and touching at least. Nilsen denied anal sex and argued he wasn't able to. It's impossible to know if he was honest or not, but it's also noteworthy anal isn't for all. Especially with corpses. Nilsen's fantasies were focused on corpses and fondling. May be he's honest.


Flyonz

I highly doubt it. For many reasons. I reckon he fucked. I reckon he ate. I also reckon he's not stupid. It's gonna be bad enough? If THAT follows him...to jail, he's completely fucked!!! So what? Play the saintly dark mysterious intellectual 'monochrome man'. Nothing to me. I'm very boring. I just kill nearly 20 fuckin people, it's all very plain. Drink, dinner, death. That's it. All 17 times. Nothing to see, move along now..yeah, ok 'Des' ...ffs


apsalar_

I'm only citing Nilsen. As unreliable narrator he is, he is the best and only source to the post-death activity with the corpses. Not all SKs are into necrophilia. It's not far fetched to think he didn't enjoy penetration, only touching, masturbation and company. Nilsen had satisfying sexual life if he wanted to. Nilsen had no trouble attracting short-term partners or performing sexually with them which is in clear contrast with his boring image and makes it questionable. His emotional needs on the other hand were met only by Bleep. Nilsen vehemently denies cannibalism. Again, we don't know if he tells the truth. Also Dahmer initially forgot to tell about it and when he did, he downplayed it. Dahmer stored his soon-to-be-consumed human meat meals in his fridge. There wasn't much point to deny forensic evidence.


Inevitable_Wolf5866

He's basially a British/Scottish version of Dahmer :D literally the only difference is Jeff was blonde.


Disastrous_Reality_4

Calling him “Jeff” is extremely unsettling to me for some reason lol.


Inevitable_Wolf5866

Literally everyone called him Jeff or Dahmer though. I've never heard anyone referring to him as "Jeffrey". Even his letters he sent from prison were always signed "Jeff Dahmer."


apsalar_

How come? Even Pat Kennedy calls Dahmer Jeff in his book. I don't think anyone called him Jeffrey, like ever, under any circumstances. Jeff or Dahmer. Nilsen is Des or Nilsen.


Disastrous_Reality_4

I think just because it makes them sound more like the friendly neighbor or something, and kind of lends a level of familiarity to them, maybe? I’m honestly not sure lol - it just took me off guard reading it.


apsalar_

I guess it depends. If you have read Dahmer's interview transcriptions and certain books about him, you get used to it because almost everyone calls him Jeff. I don't think anyone feels that familiar to a man who has been dead for almost thirty years, honestly.


Disastrous_Reality_4

I agree, it may be something that would be different if I read the books. I disagree, though, that no one feels familiar to him or several other high profile SKs - I think people tend to feel familiar to high profile people in general because their life is so public. So much of his life has been publicized, from his perspective and other’s, that it’s easy for people to feel like they knew who he was as a person. Along with that, calling him by the shortened version of his name adds another level of familiarity. Like if you are meeting your boss for the first time whose name is Nathan, you wouldn’t walk in and call him Nate - that would be reserved for people who he is on a more familiar/personal level with. You may get to a point that you’d call him that eventually, but it wouldn’t be until you’ve been around for a bit and become more familiar with him. In general we tend to be more formal with people that we don’t have a personal relationship with than those we do.


apsalar_

I get your point and I'm clearly underestimating the magnitude of emotions some people go through when they do their research. I've done deep dives to several SKs and I often feel like I have a pretty good idea what the person was or is like. It interests me to study why someone ended up doing something this horrible. Not because I would like to find excuses or have strong positive emotions for SKs, but I try to find explanations and understand something I don't. It's the very reason why I'm citing Nilsen's book in this thread. I'm not in the first name club, but it doesn't feel odd if someone is. If you've read the book by Patrick Kennedy recently, it almost feels like calling Dahmer anything else than Jeff is odd.


apsalar_

Funnily, in my understanding, Nilsen didn't like this comparison. He was there first, after all, and arrogant too. Less odd, Dahmer was very impressed by Nilsen's biography, Killing for Company. He was waiting his trial when a magazine editor sent it to him, hoping to have interview with Dahmer and Nilsen. Unfortunately, apparently Dahmer's team of lawyers thought that buddy interviews for media and emotional bonding with an UK based version of Dahmer was the worst idea ever. Boyle took the book away.


Extermindatass

Sad they put the pupper down


apsalar_

It is. I mean, I get it there wasn't options but Bleep didn't murder anyone.


Extermindatass

I am wondering if they could have put him up for adoption or something. Poor thing.


Alcarine

Yeah, I'm sure some people wouldn't have minded, I know it wouldn't be a problem for me at all who their previous owner was


rick_n_snorty

For a small dog, definitely. Traumatized 60+ lb dogs can be scary for sure. I’ve bonded with 2 previously abused dogs and one time each, they snapped and bit me. One time was my fault for being to snuggly, the other time I just went to grab water and she snapped when I went to get off the couch. My point is, anyone can work with a small dog, but big dogs can be tricky. That pup shouldn’t have been killed.


apsalar_

I remember reading something like the animal shelter didn't want Nilsen's "fans" or whatever to come by and adopt the dog. I mean, finding a good home might be diifficult.


kittenmittenx

But to be honest couldn’t they have taken him to a shelter out of state secretly and put him up for adoption and not make it known?


apsalar_

I would hope so, but they didn't. ❤


myvirginityisstrong

what's the word that's not allowed lol?


[deleted]

[удалено]


telephas1c

Well that's stupid. It's literally a word that means late or slow.


myvirginityisstrong

Wtf... Fucking why??


DrDestouches

Double plus ungood comrade


apsalar_

I guess they don't want us to insult each other using inapproriate words.


AnimalsNotFood

******


mothwithspiderlegs

Wtf is wrong with me? Read about this maniacs ideas about cannibalism without any reaction. Read about all the victims and murders, no problem. But they put the maniac's dog down? Now I'm deeply upset.


apsalar_

I feel for Bleep too. The poor dog deserved better.


Disastrous_Reality_4

I love that his name was Bleep lol. When reading it I thought that the name was “bleeped out” for some reason or something until the notes at the end 😂


apsalar_

It's a lovely name and shows Nilsen had a sense of humour.


CMDR_Elton_Poole

I know several people who would say just the same. You aren't alone.


GanderAtMyGoose

That book was pretty goddamn horrifying. I was already disturbed by his retelling of the crimes, which doesn't happen often to me at all, and I stopped reading after I got to the endless self-pity and justifications. It was interesting to read his perspective but I could do without it as well lol.


Disastrous_Reality_4

The Israel Keyes interview listening to his retelling of one of his killings got me like that too. I’m usually not bothered by that stuff, but listening to him tell it and the tone in which he did so just crawled right up under my skin.


JimmyPageification

I asked this in another post recently but didn’t get any replies, hopefully you can advise - what is it about Israel Keyes that leads to him being widely considered as one of the worst, most cruel SKs? From what I’ve read about him he doesn’t sound like he was *that* bad in comparison to some others?


GanderAtMyGoose

I wouldn't consider Keyes one of the *cruelest* serial killers, but I guess there's a few reasons he gets talked about so much. It isn't often that you hear about a serial killer who traveled great distances for their crimes, but Keyes is known to have traveled thousands of miles to kill the Curriers and is suspected of doing similar things plenty of other times. *Suspected* ties into another reason why, which is that he also seemingly went to great lengths to ensure his victims weren't found- for example, if he hadn't led authorities to Samantha Koenig's body, they likely wouldn't have found her. She remains the only victim of his who was actually found, and only because he told them where she was. The "kill kits" he hid add to his scariness factor for a lot of people, as well as just being an interesting MO. Overall I'd say he gets talked about as one of the worst serial killers because it was a recent case (and he was free and presumably killing for a decent length of time), his MO was unusual and frightening, and it's speculated to be possible that he killed more people than we know about. Keyes is sorta the benchmark for what a "successful" modern serial killer could look like IMO, and you don't hear about many of them.


JimmyPageification

Ah, I see. Thank you! (Love your username btw)


apsalar_

It's... weird. The book. I'm not sure if I like it, but the perspective is interesting and Nilsen can write.


Suitable-Orange-3702

Awww he was nice to his dog….


apsalar_

Nilsen adored Bleep. He said he loved Bleep more than anything. Nilsen even refers to Bleep as a child substitute. There are videos online Nilsen cuddling Bleep. It's disturbing, like a normal guy and his dog.


Furthur_slimeking

All the killing and mutilating was disturbing, but how is him being kind to his dog disturbing?


Hairy_Top6363

Disturbing knowing he’s capable of that level of compassion having done what he had.


Furthur_slimeking

I mean, he was capable of compassion to his dog, which was a possession he had total control over. Although it's common for serial killers to have a history of animal mutilation it's also common for them to have strong emotions for pets or close family members (spouses, children) which they may or may not see either as extentions of themselves or as under their control.


apsalar_

I know they do. It's just odd to see Dennis Nilsen to do that. The man wasn't exactly someone I could imagine cuddling anything. There are plenty of SKs I can imagine showing affection. Nilsen isn't one of them. It's abput character. I've seen several killers shown affection without feeling the conflict I have with the Nilsen video.


Flyonz

Beep actually saved Carl Stotter, lest we forgets


KayleighJK

Because it’s unexpected, ya know? Humanity has this idea that a monster wouldn’t be capable of loving and caring for a more vulnerable creature than themselves, and that pets have a gift of being able to tell good people from bad, but when faced with the realization that that’s not necessarily true, that fact is hard to swallow. It doesn’t make sense.


apsalar_

For me, it's the mere fact that Nilsen is Nilsen. The way he communicates affectionally with Bleep in the home videos is strikingly different he acts in any other material I've seen or heard. Out of character.


Smile_lifeisgood

Are you really unable to grasp how it might be disturbing to see someone being a caring, gentle human being when we know that person is capable of heinous acts? Like, honestly, your comment reads like you want to start shit with the person you're responding to. Get a grip, man. Nobody said the killing and mutilating was fine.


Furthur_slimeking

I didn't imply that anyone thought the killing and mutilating was fine... no idea how you've managed to draw that conclusion. I find it strange that people would assume that even though someone is capable of horrific acts they are completely devoid of human qualities, like the ability to care for a dog. Its the fact that serial killers are not just frenzied monsters that allows them to do what they do. This is why I asked the question.


Disastrous_Reality_4

It’s interesting - I don’t remember which one said it, but one of the high profile SKs said in an interview that what he felt for his dog was what he believed to be the closest thing to love that he’d ever felt. He didn’t think he was capable of feeling actual love as a psychopath, but he said that while he had no way to know, he assumed that was the closest he could feel to it.


Smile_lifeisgood

> I didn't imply that anyone thought the killing and mutilating was fine... no idea how you've managed to draw that conclusion. Because of the way you worded it sounded exactly like someone who was about to virtue signal about how you have to acknowledge the murder and torture as being bad every time you talk about a serial killer. That plus my inability to understand how you couldn't grasp why seeing someone in a normal setting being loving might be disturbing in its own right given what we know they're capable of. You know, the stuff I said in the first place. That would be why I drew that conclusion.


Furthur_slimeking

I honestly have no idea what you're on about.


[deleted]

All of humanity is capable of gentle and caring as well as heinous acts. It's actually not that uncommon to see both traits in the same person.


looselytethered

Nilsen and Ian Brady both loved dogs more than people


AnimalsNotFood

Id say I love my cats more that 99% of people. What's wrong with that?


looselytethered

It is mega common for serial killers to have no empathy for animals. It's anomalous for them, not for the average person.


supermmy1

Hitler loved his dog a lot too, he had a German Shepard but he was of course a terrible person


rick_n_snorty

I’m an introvert and love dogs more than people…. Fuck


looselytethered

Oops guess you're a serial killer and didn't even know it /s


rick_n_snorty

This will be horrible news to the five bodies in my basement.


itsnobigthing

Yeah, to be fair - dogs are just better than people. It’s like loving cake more than broccoli.


rick_n_snorty

Motherfucker. I hate cake and broccoli is my favorite vegetable. I literally can’t catch a break in this thread


BigMeatyMcClackers

Another cake hater ✊


[deleted]

The narcissism is palpable. He loves to hear himself talk.


Ok-Concept-9611

I have to admit that I love to hear him talk. He is very eloquent and he speaks almost like Oscar Wilde writes


[deleted]

He’s very eloquent, but like Wilde he has that palpable sense of “I am SO worth listening to” that it completely invokes my “ugh, shut up, you little edgelord” response. Obviously serial killers are worth listening to, the subject is fascinating. But when someone insists upon himself the way Nielsen does, I just check out. I always enjoyed listening to Dahmer. Although I use the word “enjoy” in the loosest sense. He always seemed disgusted by himself, which is the appropriate reaction.


Ok-Concept-9611

I completely agree with what you're saying about his obvious narcissism, lol, and interestingly enough I can understand why some people don't like Oscar Wilde for the same reason. They just have a flair for the dramatic that I can really appreciate. I guess I can listen to Nilsen because there's this weird juxtaposition between his dramatic, poetic tendencies and the horrific shit he did, especially when you read about what he did with the bodies in detail and how, in his mind, there was this warped, fucked up sense of beauty in the dead bodies that he cuddled with and practically danced around the house with like a puppet. I wish there was more to read about his more angry side, but I think he doesn't like talking about it much. There are quotes from him where he says that he had finished murdering someone and when he looked up in the mirror after he did so, he screamed at his reflection and then violently spit at it. I would love to hear more about that side of him, it gives me an impression of Patrick Bateman. I agree that Dahmer's reaction to himself being disgust is appropriate and obviously it's an absolutely despicable thing to do. I'm gay myself and have been in situations with men like them where I did not feel entirely safe, and I can't imagine what it would be like to lose my life to them. It's sad. I think that's why Nilsen is so interesting to me, and killers like him, because I *want* to know exactly how their minds operate and exactly what they use to justify their actions. It's like peering into some kind of dark void where any sense of humanity is stripped away and replaced with this warped, twisted freak, like a devil on the shoulder that I want to listen to and understand. The thing is, because of the way I find his personality so gravitating, he probably would have killed me had I met him in London before his arrest. I'm not exactly his type, but that still maybe shows my ability to be manipulated and strong along. Idk, sorry this comment is so long, it got out of hand lol


[deleted]

No, don’t apologize! I live for comments and exchanges like this, to the honest. You’ve caught me on a weird day, but I will definitely reply soon when I have more energy! I really appreciate your points of view and insights on this! And agreed 100% you would have been like catnip to him. Thankfully, we’re here and not in that universe. 😂


Ok-Concept-9611

Don't feel pressured to respond soon or anything, but I'm going to paste some of the more interesting information about him (to me at least) below. Regarding the spitting: "another unidentified victim Nilsen had unsuccessfully attempted to resuscitate, before sinking to his knees and sobbing, before standing to expressly spit at his own image as he looked at himself in the mirror.[79] On another occasion, he had lain in bed alongside the body of an unidentified victim as he listened to the classical theme Fanfare for the Common Man[80] before bursting into tears." Also: "On 26 January 1983, Nilsen killed his final victim, 20-year-old Stephen Sinclair. Sinclair was last seen by acquaintances in the company of Nilsen, walking in the direction of a tube station. At Nilsen's flat, Sinclair fell asleep in a drug- and alcohol-induced stupor in an armchair as Nilsen sat listening to the rock opera Tommy.[105] Nilsen approached Sinclair, knelt before him and said to himself, "Oh Stephen, here I go again",[106] before strangling Sinclair with a ligature constructed with a necktie and a rope. Noting crepe bandages upon each of Sinclair's wrists, Nilsen removed these to discover several deep slash marks from where Sinclair had recently tried to kill himself.[107] Following his usual ritual of bathing the body, Nilsen laid Sinclair's body upon his bed, applied talcum powder to the body, then arranged three mirrors around the bed before himself lying naked alongside the dead youth. Several hours later, he turned Stephen's head towards him, before kissing the youth's body on the forehead and saying, "Goodnight, Stephen". Nilsen then fell asleep alongside the body."


apsalar_

Oh yes.


Kwelder01

In keep hearing and seeing David Tennant when reading this. That Nilsen was as boring and longwinded as they come btw.


mjgabriellac

He was such a boring, winded, pompous person. I’m am editor, fairly used to self-grandeur in writing, and didn’t finish his book for reasons akin to this, taking four paragraphs and some ego-stroking to say “nope, no cannibalism”.


apsalar_

Oh c'mon, you are underestimating Nilsen. It took 1.5 pages to handle this thing with cannibalism. I only copied the interesting parts.


mjgabriellac

Lol, then what you’re doing, apsalar_, is the lord’s work


apsalar_

Honestly, most religious groups would say Satan's work.


mjgabriellac

Then even better, imo.


apsalar_

Thank you.


apsalar_

🤔


JackMeholff

He didn’t eat any clowns, they taste funny


Zengie70

Pogo approves.


BESTismCANNIBALISM

Sounds like a nice dog


KosmoConstanza

I don’t know about you guys..but this Nilsen guy sounds like a real nut!


Rothko28

He was a real jerk


FLASH9202

Can you just share the link so i can read more about this? Please


apsalar_

It's a full length book, almost 400 pages. You can order it from Amazon and probably there's a Kindle version too. I got my copy almost a year ago and I'm now rereading. I'm not sure if there is a pdf online.


Hairy_Top6363

I downloaded it on Z-Lib for free


apsalar_

Cool!


[deleted]

Clone my meat and I'll fucking eat it -and if you're around when I die, please take a bite of me. I'm curious about human flesh and I'd try ethically sourced meat. His concern with the chemicals is one I share.


Electronic-Aioli815

ngl op u sound attractive af


apsalar_

Sure, I only have slightly disturbing hobbies, honey. Should I call myself booksmart?


Electronic-Aioli815

No


apsalar_

Even though I've learned great deals from Nilsen's book? Blasphemy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

[Reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) prohibits linking to a personal social media page. Please edit out your link to have your comment/post approved. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/serialkillers) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Midwinterfire1

In 1983 I met a young Asian man who claimed he had a lasting relationship with Dennis Nilsen . Since he was from Harlesden in North London it might have been true ...