Regarding "Blood Stained: When No One Comes Looking"

One observation I would like to point out, which is in the book but worded with the psychiatric community in mind rather than the layman: Murder by disassociation. In the mere month that Blood Stained has been available to the public, there’s been an increasing interest in his story, which is good. What gives me pause, however, is the eagerness of many who have written about or studied serial killers to lump-sum David into one typical profile.

It is important to remember when categorizing for profession, fascination or one’s own safety that most spree or serial killers view their victims as “things”. Bundy, Gacy, Gein, the Zodiac, the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer…the list goes on and on…obsessed over “things” reminiscent of “someone” they hated. This is another reason that, with the exception of Gein, their body counts were so high. Like a soldier in war fending off the enemy, they were not killing people; they were killing things.

David murdered people, not things. His effort to develop relationships, often longstanding ones, denotes a significant difference in pathology from these other psychopaths and sociopaths. His love for who they were to him in the moment, not necessarily what they represented, was defined by great remorse after they were dead.

Herein lays the great debate about David Maust: Was he or was he not your garden variety psychopath? No, he was an anomaly. There will be many who disagree, be it from stubbornness or sheer ignorance of what the term psychopath genuinely means, but if one is to apply labels, it is my belief that one must understand the label. Psychopath does not mean crazy, insane, evil, dangerous or cruel; however, a psychopath may carry one or all of those traits. Its fundamental foundation lies on depravity and lack of remorse.

If it is difficult for society to accept that a serial killer may have remorse, then we are, as a whole, in a regression that will only hinder prevention and aide in more tragedy. I receive emails almost daily from readers who call David an animal rotting in Hell or who, on the flip side, show compassion for his childhood traumas. I’ve yet to receive one that excuses murder or his actions as an adult. That’s a positive, as there is a large difference between killing and murdering which is supported by the governing mitigation of circumstance. A soldier kills the thing called enemy; a serial killer murders the thing called revenge; David murdered people called “loved ones”.

This, without a doubt, is offensive to the families and friends of David’s victims. To assume, as bold in classification as it is, that David actually cared for those he eradicated from mortal life, would be reprehensible for me to accept should I be in their shoes. It is a statement not meant to rally forgiveness for David or his motives; rather, it is to raise understanding and awareness.

Your children, and mine, may be the target of a psychopath and disappear without notice by the hands of a stranger. Or they may be in a relationship which, on the surface, seems void of danger. David’s love and remorse did not eliminate a description of lethal. To that end, it is my earnest and unyielding goal to broaden understanding. To me the Gacy’s and Bundy’s of the world are boring; their profiles are entirely predicable and passé. My greatest fear for our children stems from the anomalies like David Edward Maust.

Blood Stained was written in part to provide some closure for those willing to accept it. There was never a trial for the three murders in Hammond; there was a plea bargain. And then he died by his own hands. Perhaps the biggest gift he felt he ever gave to society was his suicide. To argue prosecution and defense at this point is a waste of time and energy. He was guilty; those murdered will not be coming back to mortality; those who survived deserve the opportunity to move on.

In parting, I’m compelled to deliver this message: Despite any efforts, either large or small, to put David on trial postmortem, I will not be privy. It’s over. Having said that I will, as always, be open to discussion on how it happened, why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again.

Sincerely,

Dory Maust