Some of the most notorious serial killers of our time have something in common, beside their thirst for blood: They were all adopted. David Berkowitz (a.k.a. Son of Sam), Ted Bundy, Aileen Wuornos, Joel Rifkin and the Boston Strangler are just a handful of the prominent serial murderers who also happen to be adoptees.
Of course, correlation doesn't not equal causation, but is there anything else we can learn about this connection?
For some adopted children, especially ones with "closed" adoptions, in which their birth records are sealed, research has shown that not knowing where they come from can contribute to trauma and mental illness. But can this type of childhood wound, in extreme cases, contribute to a later propensity for violence? It's a question that has stumped criminologists and psychologists for decades.
A&E spoke with criminologist Dr. Scott Bonn, author of Why We Love Serial Killers, to see whether there is any evidence of an adoptee-serial killer connection.
What's your take on the claim that adoptees are overrepresented among serial killers?
When it comes to very high-profile serial killers, [a number of them] were indeed adopted. There seems to be a correlation, but I would certainly not say a causality. The fact that they were adopted did not cause them to become serial killers. There are millions of people who are adopted every year who don't go on to become violent criminals or serial killers.
David Berkowitz, for example, was a very alienated, disturbed and frightened young boy long before he found out that his birth mother had put him up for adoption. Berkowitz was told [by his adopted parents] that his mother died in childbirth. In his early 20s, he found out that was not true, and it certainly fueled his anger. But the seeds for his pathology [were] laid long before that.