UBC: Barer, Murder in the Family

Murder In The Family by Burl Barer

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I believe this case has been an episode both of Forensic Files and The New Detectives, which only makes sense given that it's a landmark case in the use of forensic evidence like hairs and fibers in convicting a murderer.

Also, the vileness of this particular murderer is exemplified by the fact that one of the most damning pieces of evidence against him was pubic hairs he left on his eight-year-old victim with pubic lice egg cases attached.

Really, that's Kirby Anthoney in a nutshell. He raped and murdered his aunt, raped and murdered his eight-year-old cousin and murdered his three-year-old cousin, very likely masturbating over her corpse. Then he cleaned up in their bathroom (leaving another pubic hair with pubic lice egg cases in a washcloth in the sink), stole his uncle's expensive camera and rolled coins from his aunt's waitressing tips and amscrayed. This is after being convicted back in Idaho of robbing an old lady in a wheelchair, including macing her unnecessarily, and raping and beating an eleven year old so severely that she was left blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and unable to remember anything about the attack. (After which he fled to Alaska before he could be arrested; his mother neglected to mention this to her brother.) He also murdered a transvestite Native Alaskan, for reasons that may or may not have been sexual, and the Anchorage police believed he was also the murderer of a Native Alaskan girl. And he beat, stalked, and terrified at least three girlfriends, including one who testified for the prosecution for the trial.

Barer writes a compelling story. The legal wrangles at Anthoney's trial get a little tangled occasionally, but that's forgivable. And I like Barer for at least trying to talk about what creates people like Kirby Anthoney, whether we call them mass murderers, serial killers, sociopaths, psychopaths, people with antisocial personality disorder, or whatever the DSM has decided is in this year (yes, I know these aren't all synonyms; that's part of my point). Abusive childhoods don't help, but he points out that many psychopaths come from stable, loving homes and psychopaths' siblings, whether they share in a nurturing environment or an abusive one, do not also become psychopaths. "Violence in the media" or "video games" or "Dungeons & Dragons" or whatever your hobby horse is, isn't an explanation or even a theory. It's a cop-out, because it doesn't explain why some people can create and maintain a moral/ethical center despite these factors, while others can't or don't. And that's the question that I think matters most, even though I don't have an answer for it.



View all my reviews