Joachim Kroll

Brian J. Kinyon
Soc 10100-00
16 March 2014
Serial Killer Questions
Joachim Kroll Joachim Kroll is a German born serial killer, rapist, and cannibal, though he was not your average serial killer. He was known as the Ruhr Cannibal (Ruhrkannibale), and the Duisburg Man-Eater (Duisburger Menschenfresser). He was convicted of eight murders but confessed to a total of 13. Born the son of a miner in Hindenburg, Kroll was the last among eight children. He was a weak child and used to wet the bed. His education was poor. (Later psychiatrists found he had an IQ of 76.) After the end of World War II, Kroll 's family moved to North Rhine-Westphalia. He began killing in 1955, after his mother died. Around 1960, Kroll went to Duisburg to find work. Afterwards, he went to Laar. At that time he resumed killing people. On July 3, 1976, Kroll was arrested for kidnapping and killing a four-year-old girl named Marion Ketter. As police went from home to home, a neighbor approached a policeman and told him that the waste-pipe in his apartment building had blocked up, and when he had asked his neighbor, Kroll, whether he knew what had been blocking the pipe, Kroll had simply replied; "Guts". Upon this report, the police went up to Kroll 's apartment and found the body of the Ketter girl cut up: some parts were in the fridge, a hand was cooking in a pan of boiling water and the intestines were found stuck in the waste-pipe. He was immediately arrested. He admitted killing Marion Ketter and gave details of 12 other murders and one attempted murder over the last two decades. They were:
February 8, 1955 - Irmgard Strehl, 19, raped and stabbed to death. Her disemboweled body was found in a barn in Lüdinghausen.
June 16, 1959 - Klara Frieda Tesmer, 24, murdered in the meadows of the Rhine.
July 26, 1959 - Manuela Knodt, 16, raped and strangled in a park. Slices of flesh were carved from her buttocks and thighs.
1962 - Barbara Bruder, 12, abducted. Her body was never found.
April 23, 1962 - Petra Giese, 13, raped and strangled.
June 1962 - Monika Tafel, 13, killed. Slices of flesh carved from her buttocks.
August 22, 1965 - Hermann Schmitz and his girlfriend Marion were attacked as they sat in a car. Hermann - Kroll 's only male victim - was killed, but Marion escaped.
September 1966 - Ursula Rohling, strangled. Her boyfriend committed suicide after being falsely accused of the crime.
December 22, 1966 - Ilona Harke, aged 5, raped and drowned in a ditch.
July 12, 1969 - Maria Hettgen, 10, raped and strangled.
May 21, 1970 - Jutta Rahn, 13, strangled walking home from a train station.
1976 - Karin Toepfer raped and strangled.
July 3, 1976 - Marion Ketter, 4. Parts of her body were in the process of being simmered when Kroll was arrested.
Kroll, mentally retarded, did something that most of the serial killers with this challenge are unable to do. He eluded police and authorities for more than twenty years. He continued in his killing spree and acted alone during the entire period which resulted in the deaths of at least fourteen women and children. The women and young children killed at the hands of Kroll were those he felt attracted to, but knew he could not be with. When Kroll was caught, he revealed many gruesome and startling details about his murders. To satisfy his abnormal sexual urges, many of his victims were raped postmortem. Kroll said that he often sliced portions of flesh from his victims to cook and eat them, claiming that he did this to save on his grocery bills. In custody, he believed that he was going to get a simple operation to cure him of his homicidal urges and would then be released from prison. Instead he was charged with eight murders and one attempted murder. In April 1982, after a 151-day trial, he was convicted on all counts and was given nine life sentences. He died in in the psychiatric ward of Rheinbach Prison in 1991 of a heart attack.

1. Does your killer fit the “typical criminal”? Yes/No Why or Why not? First off, according to research violent crimes, especially murder, are not typical crimes and do not make up the majority of criminal activity. Kroll, however, does fit certain “typical” characteristics of a criminal. He did suffer a deprived childhood. He grew up in a two bedroom home with eight siblings, little money, and his father died in WWII. He also had bed wetting problems and in turn was picked on by members of his family. He lacked a good education, only attended school until third grade, and had and IQ of only 76. Even if you examine him on the precedent of being a “typical” serial killer, he does not fit the norm. Kroll’s consistency was very sporadic. He crimes were erratic, occurring years apart and in different parts of Germany. He strangling, stabbed, and suffocated his victims. This gave the police a profile of several different men, none of which fit the description of Joachim Kroll. In addition, serial killers suffering from mental retardation are not able to get away with murdering people as long as Kroll was able to. Typically, they need a partner to help or guide them on what to do. Kroll, in spite of these guidelines, committed his murders on his own and never spoke of them to anyone. Given he was able to do this; the police had no idea that he was capable of the crimes he committed.
2. Is Mens Rea involved? Describe if your answer is yes. Mens Rea is a very complicated issue in the case of Joachim Kroll. Mens Rea requires what is referred to as a “guilty mind.” This is the awareness of wrongdoing with the intention to commit a criminal act or behave recklessly. It is not clear whether or not Kroll viewed his acts as a crime. There is speculation he changed his method of killing to avoid detection. Given Kroll’s mental state there is evidence he might not have perceived what he was doing was wrong. It is hard for mentally retarded person to distinguish between right and wrong without assistance. Even upon committing a criminal act it is difficult for them to understand the gravity of the situation. Furthermore, it is said the local news stations showed his murders, but he never suspected he was the man police were after. In conclusion, I do not believe he wholly knew what he was doing. If he did it was on a very minimal level and definitely did not comprehend the seriousness of his crimes.

3. Does your killer fit any or all of the listed below: Describe. A – Wild beast theory Krolls actions were, to say the least brutal and monstrous. He would murder, then rape, then eat his victims. He would save parts of them to consume at a later time. Why exactly he did this is still a mystery. Kroll gave examples such as, “I was raised seeing pigs slaughtered,” and “Food is so expensive where I live.” This beastly nature he exhibited was no doubt animalistic. He had violent, sadistic, and primal urges which he gave into. He had no urge for fame or outsmarting the police. Given his mental state, he simply could not forgo his compulsions. One definition of beast is an inhumanly cruel, violent, or depraved person. Kroll embodied this so much one of his nicknames included hunter and man-eater. B – McNaghten Rules Little is known about the trial of Kroll. From what I can gather Germany does not even have the insanity plea. He admitted during his confession that he had intended to kill at least fourteen women, but his memory was not very good. He said he could have killed more, or possibly less. After he was arrested he thought he would get an operation that would allow him to control his urges and he would be released. Joachim Kroll was mentally handicapped but that did not offer him any reprieve. Had he committed these murders in the U.S. the trial and outcome may have been transpired differently. C – Irresistible impulse test Irresistible impulse asserts that the person, although able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the act, suffered from a mental disease or defect that made him incapable of controlling his actions. This is how Kroll is described and also described himself. When he felt compelled to commit his crimes he did. Like previously stated, even though he knew the things he was doing was wrong, he neither comprehended the degree nor could control his impulses.
4. Is the crime(s) your killer committed a felony or a misdemeanor? How did you come to your conclusions? The crimes perpetrated by my serial killer were without a doubt a felony. A misdemeanor is a crime of a less propensity than felonies and can only have a maximum prison sentence of one year or a fine. Our book defines a felony as a severe crime, subject to punishment of one year or more in prison or to capital punishment. Kroll was convicted on eight counts of murder and sentenced to nine life sentences. I am not clear how crimes are defined in Germany but there is undeniable proof his crimes were a felony by U.S. standards.
5. Did the media image or description of the crime enhance your killers will or need to continue to commit his crime? Kroll committed his crimes due to his uncontrollable sexual and violent urges. He was oblivious to most things outside his realm of comprehension. Kroll did not monitor the news, or show interest in any other forms of media. His killings were not a desperate cry for attention. He also had no idea that his killings were even being broadcast or that authorities were urgently searching for him. This proves he was not motivated nor was his need enhanced by media coverage.
6. Is the crime a part 1 or part 2 of the UCR? The UCR outlines part 1 as either crimes against the person or crimes against property. Crimes against the person are listed as: criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Crimes against property are specified as: burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Krolls offenses of criminal homicide and forcible rape are considered crimes against the person. According to the FBI, his crimes fall into part 1 of the Uniform Crime Index.
7. Could you do a self-report survey or participant observation research on your case? Yes/No Why or why not? A self-report survey is where people are asked to report their own criminal acts in a confidential interview or on an anonymous questionnaire. Considering I am not the perpetrator in my case, a self-report survey would not be suitable. Kroll’s confession could be interpreted as a self-report survey, though it was not anonymous. Either way the answer would be I could not do a self-report survey on my case. A participant observation is when an investigator takes part in many of the activities of groups in order to gain acceptance, but generally make clear the purpose of their participation. This would not be possible in my case. In order for this to be feasible I would have to engage in the murders and rapes with my serial killer. That is entirely unachievable. For one, Kroll’s crime happened years before I was even born. Secondly, I would at no time engage in either of those activities. In conclusion, by no means is a participant observation possible.
8. What benefits did your killer do for the whole of society? On first glance the obvious answer would be nothing. What conceivable benefits could a serial killer contribute to the whole of society? After much consideration, there is something that comes to mind. Joachim Kroll avoided capture for so long because he did not fit the profile of the person law enforcement was looking for. His habits were not stereotypical for a mentally handicapped killer. After his arrest, confession, and trial he provided something authorities did not have before. He contributed an awareness of something that was not thought possible. Investigators would now have the benefit of knowing that while most of the time criminals fit the profile, sometimes this is not the case.
9. In your research, did you find that society, the law, or the media “blaming the victim” for what happened to them? Yes/No. Explain Blaming the victim describes the attempt to escape responsibility by placing the blame for the crime at the hands of the victim. This occurs when the victim of a crime, or any wrongful act, is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them. There is no evidence Kroll’s victim received any of the blame. They were all innocent and defenseless targets of Kroll’s inhuman desires. Nearly all of his victims were children or young women. Not a single one of his victims did anything to “ask” to be treated in such an atrocious manner. It would be unreasonable for society, the law, or the media to blame the victim for what happened to them.
10. Did your killer know his victim prior to the crime? If so, what is the relationship between killer and victim? There is evidence Kroll knew some of his victims prior to his crimes. Neighbors said he indulged young children with treats and little gifts. Parents of the local families remember Joachim as a pleasant and thoughtful man who seemed to want a family of his own. He also stalked his victims in advance to learn their habits. He conversed with several of his victims, luring them into quiet and desolate locations. His first victim, Irmgard Strehl, was guaranteed jewelry in order to accompany Kroll to an isolated barn. The final victim, Marion Ketter, was a little girl from the neighborhood in which he lived. He was said to have enticed her into his apartment with the promise of candy. In summary, Kroll did not have what would be defined as a relationship with his victims. He knew some of them but not on a personal level.
11. Was this crime a “hate crime”? I want the definition that was explained in class. Classically, a hate crime is said to be a criminal offense committed because of the offender 's bias against a race, religion, ethnic group, national origin, or sexual orientation. There is nothing about this definition that defines the motive for Kroll’s slayings. He did not hate anybody. His victims were solely a way for him satisfy his cravings.
12. Did you find any patterns of child abuse in your killer’s younger years? There is not much to found on Joachim Kroll’s childhood and what is found is conflicting. There does not seem to be any evidence of physical abuse, but during that time I am not sure what would have even been considered as abuse. What we view as child abuse today would not have been viewed as so then. With an IQ of only 76, was labeled borderline retarded. Kroll was also considered by many as the town idiot. He was a constant bed wetter, made fun of by most of his family. As to whether he experienced abuse as a child, there is no evidence of physical abuse. In spite of this, the way he was verbally tormented and looked down upon would constitute emotional and mental abuse.
13. What relationship was found between child abuse and subsequent adult crime? Kroll blamed his compulsions on certain events he witnessed on the family farm throughout his childhood. What these events exactly were, I could not begin to speculate. Kroll desired his preys sexually, but knew that he could not have sex with them while they were still alive and able to reject or fight him off. Kroll could only achieve sexual arousal with his victims. This occurred during and after the murder, in which a majority of his victims were raped post mortem. The seeds of sexual perversion were planted early in the psyche of Joachim Kroll. These sexual perversions manifested themselves later in his life, through fantasy. By the time he actually committed a crime, the event was the culmination of his psychosocial and psychosexual conditioning and development. These incidents on the farm and the emotional and mental abuse he suffered as a child surely had something to do with his self-esteem and impotence. There is undeniably a relationship between his abuse and his subsequent adult crime.
14. Did you find any relationship between media violence and societal violence with your killer? Joachim Kroll was born the last of eight children to a poor mining family. After his father died in WWII, his family had even less money and moved in with relatives. Given the circumstances of his family, Joachim would have had limited, if any, access to media violence. Societal violence, consequently, he would have had access to because of the war. Joachim would have been between six and twelve years old at the time. Given his age and limited IQ, I would speculate he was oblivious to most things going on in the bigger part of the world. That being said, there is no evidence to suggest there is a relationship between media or societal violence and the actions of Joachim Kroll.
15. Is your killer involved in property crimes? Property crimes are categorized as crimes that include, among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism. Property crime only involves the taking of money or property, and does not involve force or threat of force against a victim. This is unquestionably not the sort of crime committed by my serial killer. Kroll carried out and confessed to the brutal murders of fourteen people. His acts were forcibly perpetrated strictly against these people. His crimes were not even remotely in the same scope as property crimes.
16. Did your serial killer get involved in any of the following:
a) Gambling
b) Drugs
c) Alcohol
d) Prostitution
e) Homosexual behavior
Did you find any of the above a factor that cause your killer to commit their crime? There is no evidence to suggest Joachim Kroll was involved in any of the above listed behaviors. Kroll, although a violent rapist and murderer, was a simple man. He did not feel the need to partake in such activities. Considering Kroll was not involved in the factors listed, I did not find they helped give motivation or cause to my killer to commit his crimes.
17. Explain the distinction between specific deterrence and general deterrence. How does this affect your serial killer? General deterrence is the concept in which the choice to commit delinquent acts can be controlled by the threat of punishment. This statement means that if a person knows that there will be consequences for their actions, and if those actions are against the law, they will be punished. General deterrence was not an issue for Joachim Kroll. There are two reasons this could have been. One reason is the threat of punishment was not great enough of a force to deter him. Secondly, there is a distinct possibility Kroll did not know his actions were against the law. Therefore, he did not understand there would be consequences or punishment to his actions. Specific deterrence is the concept that if a person is punished severely the experience will convince them not to repeat their illegal acts. This again was not an issue with Kroll. He did not get caught committing any of his acts and punished. Therefore, there could be no convincing him not to repeat his acts of he did not get caught to receive such a penalty. Going by all the research, I believe regardless of whether it was general or specific deterrence, Kroll could not have refrained from continuing his actions. Kroll was not only unable to understand neither the severity nor the act of what he was doing wrong. I do not believe he had the capacity to understand and control his compulsions to rape and murder.
18. Was your killers’ trial held in civil or criminal court? Why was he tried in that court? Kroll’s trial was arraigned in a German criminal court. He was tried in a criminal court because civil courts settle disputes when one person sues another person, a business or agency. This can cover a housing case such as for eviction or foreclosure, consumer problems such as debt or bankruptcy, or when someone sues for money because of damage to property or personal harm. A person goes to criminal court if they violate a criminal law. Criminal laws are the rules that apply when someone commits a crime, such as assault, robbery, murder, arson, rape and other kinds of crimes. After a person is arrested and charged with a crime, that person goes to a Criminal Court. Given Kroll committed a crime his trial was held in a criminal court.
19. Did the Psychoanalytic theory come into play with your serial killer? Explain. The psychoanalytic theory of criminality attributes delinquent and criminal behavior to at least three possible causes:
A conscience so overbearing that it arouses feelings of guilt.
A conscience so weak that it cannot control the individual’s impulses.
The need for immediate gratification.
The first cause does is not attributed to Kroll. Kroll did not seem to have much of a conscience nor did he show any feelings of guilt. The third cause also is not attributed to him. Once he got his urges to rape and murder a woman, he chose his target and stalked them to figure out the best time and place to do so. The second point is undoubtedly a characteristic of Kroll’s. He had violent and sexual urges and had a conscience so weak he could not control his impulses. To sum up the Psychoanalytic Theory does come into play with my serial killer, just not all three aspects.
20. Did the Minimum brain dysfunction come into play with your serial killer? Explain. MBD is classified as “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder” which produces asocial behavioral patterns such as impulsivity, hyperactivity, aggressiveness, low self-esteem, and temper outbursts. Nothing in my research would suggest this is applicable. Even though Kroll did have low self-esteem he was not described as hyperactive, aggressive, or have temper outbursts. He was also not impulsive in the least. He knew what he wanted and did the necessary work involved to accomplish his task.
21. Did the Social learning theory come into play with your serial killer? Explain. Social learning theory maintains delinquent behavior is learned through the same psychological processes as any other behavior. Behavior is learned when it is reinforced or rewarded; it is not learned when it is not reinforced. Evidence suggests Social learning theory does come into play. Kroll learned after he committed his first murder, direct experience, how to satisfy his cravings. This then reinforced his delinquent behavior and gave him a way to keep satisfying these urges in the future.
22. Did any of the Social disorganization theory come into play with your serial killer? Explain. Social disorganization theory focuses on the development of high-crime areas in which there is a disintegration of conventional values caused by rapid industrialization, increased immigration, and urbanization. There is nothing to suggest Social disorganization theory came into play in Joachim Kroll’s case. If anything it was the opposite in Germany during the years he committed his murders. WWII had ended, immigration, industrialization, and urbanization had halted. Kroll was not part of a high crime area with a disintegration of conventional values. He acted alone and was not part of a mass crime surge with numerous perpetrators.
23. What is your argument for the death penalty for your killer? Why? Had the death penalty been legalized in Germany, the reasons for would have been strong in this case. Joachim Kroll murdered all his victims sadistically. He killed a great many very young girls causing an immense amount of heartache to their families. There were also instances of other people being convicted or accused of his crimes and killing themselves. Joachim Kroll left an enormous amount of sadness and suffering in the wake of his crimes. There would be calls of retribution. His death would undoubtedly help to give solace to the families involved. If murder is the deprivation of a victim’s right to life, then the justice system’s answer should be the deprivation of the criminal’s right to the same.
24. What is your argument against the death penalty for your killer? Why? Even though, in some perspectives, Joachim Kroll deserved to die for the crimes he committed there are reasoning’s on why he should not. When a murderer is put to death, they are taught precisely nothing because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing them. It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same act. If the goal of any punishment, as stated above, is to teach us those things we should not do, then the justice system should more adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake in it. In addition, being sentenced to life in prison is a far greater punishment. Your freedoms are stripped away and you are forced to live the rest of your life with another person telling you what to do. Lastly, there is the issue of Kroll’s mental incompetence. Imposing the death penalty on a person with mental retardation is not necessary to advance the goal of deterrence. People with that disability are generally unable to anticipate consequences of their actions and assess their options. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, "The heart of the retribution rationale is that a criminal sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender." Since mental retardation prohibits the moral accountability that is supposed to be a prerequisite of capital punishment, executing an offender with mental retardation cannot be justified as giving him what he deserves.

References http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/joachim_kroll/10.html http://serialkillercentral.blogspot.com/2010/07/joachim-kroll-ruhr-hunter.html http://murderpedia.org/male.K/k/kroll-joachim.htm http://mysteriousthings.ws24.cc/text_96139899_19357116_24622335_deutsch.html http://howtowingit.wordpress.com/category/joachim-kroll/ Criminology 7th Edition Adler Mueller Laufer
The Serial Killer Spotlight – Joachim Kroll: A Unique Serial Killer by Arthur Coleman

References: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/joachim_kroll/10.html http://serialkillercentral.blogspot.com/2010/07/joachim-kroll-ruhr-hunter.html http://murderpedia.org/male.K/k/kroll-joachim.htm http://mysteriousthings.ws24.cc/text_96139899_19357116_24622335_deutsch.html http://howtowingit.wordpress.com/category/joachim-kroll/ Criminology 7th Edition Adler Mueller Laufer The Serial Killer Spotlight – Joachim Kroll: A Unique Serial Killer by Arthur Coleman