Search Box

Sunday, July 2, 2017

"Sentence held for deranged rapist who 'enjoyed the hunt'"

I saw the above headline this morning which ran with this accompanying photograph in the NY Post:

I was all set to put up a snarky post along the lines of how this guy actually looked the part, but then I read the article:

An appeals court upheld the maximum prison sentence for a deranged Pennsylvania man obsessed with raping real estate agents, according to reports.

Frank Yeager compiled a list of some 200 potential victims he hoped to violate, and claimed in his diary to “truly enjoy the hunt,” NBC 10 reported.

After spending months compiling his sick list, he tried to rape a real estate agent in 2012, according to prosecutors.

Yeager, 33, went to a real estate agent’s office in November 2012, and asked her to show him a secluded model home. She refused because he was acting strangely.

He returned minutes later, claiming there was a water leak in the home he wanted to see, and begged her to go with him. When a male colleague entered the room, Yeager panicked and fled.

Later, the Realtors went to the house to see whether in fact there was a leak. They found all the house’s lights out and curtains drawn — but no water leaking anywhere, so they called cops.

Yeager, who was born with facial deformities, confessed to the plot, which he attributed to a lifetime of bullying and being shunned by women.

Yeager said knew he would never get the wife and home he wanted, so he planned to kill himself after carrying out his violent sexual fantasies.

“I know it is wrong but I cannot fight the urges…I truly enjoy the hunt and cannot wait for my prize,” he wrote in the diary, prosecutors said.

His parents said in court that Yeager was forced to undergo several facial surgeries as a child and was mentally ill.

The article about this case in The Sun said that Yeager had "endured a lifetime of cruel taunts by strangers."

I don't doubt that Yeager in fact did go through a lifetime of bullying, and he obviously would have been shunned by women. All he wanted was a normal life, and that was clearly not going to happen. 

I'm not suggesting Yeager's not being punished appropriately -- he attempted the crime, so he should pay. 

But I couldn't help feeling sorry for him. 

He evidently has two parents who love him, and who basically tried to plead for leniency from the court. That means there must be some decency in him somewhere. 

The fact that he "panicked and ran" when the male realtor entered that room indicates that he's probably not even a sociopath, since sociopaths rarely panic.

Yeager himself was honest about the attempted rape, and his motivation. And he probably did plan to kill himself afterwards. 

It was his monstrous face, which he was stuck with through no fault of his own, which turned him into a monster.

How many of us can say that if we had spent our entire lives looking like that, and being bullied for it, and even being taunted by passing strangers, that we wouldn't be bitter and want revenge on mankind?

I couldn't. 

I certainly don't blame any of the women who turned him down. But the real monsters in this story are the passing strangers who would see a deformed kid and mock him for it. 


Gilbert Ratchet said...

"Monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo"

John Craig said...

Gilbert --
Yes, but in this case it seems to have been the monstrum in fronte which created the one in animo.

By the way, thanks again for alerting me to the fact that I had accidentally put up my "ideas" file. I think it was only up for half an hour or so, but still, quite embarrassing. I've since put most of it in a different place where it can't be posted accidentally.

Runner Katy said...

You're showing a lot of empathy and thinking in the other persons' POV today. Not enough of us do that. If we would, I think people like this guy might have more friends and enough love in his life to not commit crimes. I could be wrong, but with the right support, I think people will not need to satisfy such urges, whether this or with animals (as in the other post).

John Craig said...

Runner Katy --
Thank you.

I have to admit, my initial reaction was to write a mocking post (on the grounds that he deserved it as a would-be rapist), but then when I read the story, my attitude shifted. And I may have a little empathy as an old guy, but I also have to admit, I wouldn't have been sympathetic enough as a young man to have actually become friends with him.

Anonymous said...

Nice comment by Runner Katy. I agree with her outlook.

- birdie

Anonymous said...

I too agree with Katy, kindness does influence emotional well-being. And yes, surprise you have shown more empathy than you normally do. Usually, when someone does something atrocious and heinous one feels hate and revulsion and hope the person is erased from the face of the earth. You do mention that the parents seem loving, but was it loving which came too late. Loving kindness is meaningful only if it is given at the right time, when the child/person desperately needs it i.e. the critical periods of development or need. I can honestly say from my own difficult life experiences, I was saved by the kindness of strangers.


Rifleman said...

An appeals court upheld the maximum prison sentence for a deranged Pennsylvania man obsessed with raping real estate agents, according to reports.

This guy succeeded in killing one. These female real estate agents can be easy targets I guess.

John Craig said...

Sherie --
You've mentioned this in the past. Were neither of your parents supportive? Just from the sense I've gotten of you through your comments, I'd guess that one of them was; or am I wrong?

John Craig said...

Rifleman --
I guess they're vulnerable for the same reason prostitutes are, because their job requires them to be alone with the client. A lot of the serial killers who racked up big numbers (like the Green River Killer, or Joel Rifkin, and probably the Gilgo Beach killer) preyed primarily on prostitutes.

Anonymous said...

Mother died 11 years+Violent father+disinterested relatives

Do the maths.


John Craig said...

Sherie --
If your mother died when you were 11 then at least you had her love and good influence for your most formative years. And that's why you were able to successfully raise a good son.

Anonymous said...

You seem to be missing my point that parents may seem loving (ref to the deranged rapist post) to their adult children but these were the same parents who disliked, neglected, hated their tiny, helpless kids. The truth of child rearing is to care for a child's needs when he needs caring. The critical periods of development.

Really not looking for your analysis. But don't you feel 11 is too young to understand
that people's meanness has nothing to do with you. It messes up your self-concept.


John Craig said...

Sherie --
Yes, that's certainly possible. And yes, 11 is a vulnerable age.

Actually, it's hard not to take stuff personally at any age. Even when I was in my 20's, I might have been tempted to take Glen Filthie's comment after the previous post (Pedophiles Part III) personally. At my age I know not to, that it's merely him expressing own personality. But at 11, yes, certainly I would have taken it to heart.

Anonymous said...

This post might explain my thinking about why your theory of pedophilia might be a little off. Yeager became a "monster" due to hate for women who had shunned him. He was not born hating these women. His story suggests that he was the outcome of the abuse of shunning and obviously there are going to be psychological effects of the abuse. I'm sure he suffered much more than just the shunning from women. From what I know about homosexuals, the majority of them were not abused and claim that their sexual preference is a genetic factor. However, like Yeager, I believe pedophiles are a product of their environment...maybe with a genetic predisposition of some sort to repeat the cycle in some way. That's a much longer discussion. From what I know, pedophiles were abused by another pedophile while they were young. Unlike what you hear about homosexuality, pedophilia is caused by sexual abuse. I'm making generalities of course because the majority of young children who were sexually abused do not go on and sexually abuse young children themselves but when one does see an adult sexually abusing young children, there always seems to be sexual abuse in the offenders past. Which leads me to the statement made by Yeager that he enjoyed "the hunt". I believe Yeager's abuse left him with the desire to hurt women and "the hunt" was just as important as hurting the women. I think this "hunt" mentality can be applied to pedophiles also. Of course, we call it "grooming" but I think the grooming is just as important to the pedophile as is the actual sexual abuse. I believe that the act of gaining the trust of children, the duping of others who see the pedophile as someone he is not, taking a child's life away, metaphorically speaking, as theirs was previously taken is an important psychological need for pedophiles. For those who hurt others due to the hurt which was caused to them when they were young, the rage, the desire to lash out and take what was taken from the adult pedophile demands an outlet which will feel the pain once felt by the adult pedophile as a child in a world the pedophile also holds in contempt for not protecting him as a child. I think there is so much more to it then just finding children sexually attractive. It is for this reason that I don't think many pedophiles would stop their behavior aided with the computer technology which you suggested. Some might. Those who truly don't want to hurt children might benefit but I think those are also the pedophiles who have already made up their minds that they will not abuse children. I think of Sandusky and others like him. I don't think they would have given up the hunt. I could be totally wrong so just take my opinion for what it's worth...which is not much! Thank you for a very thought provoking blog.


John Craig said...

Hannah --
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Yeah, that's a good point: with a lot of pedophiles, the strongest part of their desire may be the "pay it forward" aspect of their revenge. I mentioned in a recent comment that I had known three pedophiles personally (that i knew of); but I didn't know any of them well enough to have any idea of what their own childhoods had been like, and whether they'd been abused. And at least in the case of my YMCA swimming coach, I always wondered about that.

I completely agree with your logic when it comes to sociopaths, btw. Almost all of them were abused, at some level, as children, and they seem to spend the rest of their lives getting revenge on mankind for that.....speaking of re-paying it forward.

I do think you may be underestimating the erotic fixation aspect of the whole thing. Julia Gwin said in a comment on the previous post (Part III) that part of a pedophile's motivation is a "craving for a union with the essence of the child." That may be true too, but I think both of you have to keep in mind, men are much more animalistic than women, and sex doesn't need to be anything more than sex to be pleasurable. And men also tend to fixate sexually on very specific things, whereas women tend to have somewhat more free-floating sexualities which can adapt to the needs of their partner. (You hear men describe themselves as "breast men" or "ass men" but you almost never hear women say the equivalent.)

As far as "the hunt," I wonder if that wasn't Yeager trying to make himself sound badass. Or, he may have just been referring tot he anticipation he felt. Remember, he never raped a single woman; he just fantasized about it, made list of the women he wanted to rape, and then got scared off the one time he started to attempt it. But, you could be right, too.

And you're certainly right about pedophiles whose main impetus is wanting to pay it forward not being satisfied with internet porn.

"I could be totally wrong so just take my opinion for what it's worth...which is not much!"

-- That, btw, is exactly what the smartest and most thoughtful people tend to say (and think). It's always the worst people who are always completely sure of themselves.

Anonymous said...

I figured out what I meant by Vladimir Putin being like Darth Vader before, and it ties into the reasoning behind anti-social action in the individual. Like the man in this post.

Putin does not strike me as someone who would delight in harming, if he does any it is a means, as far as I know (unless there is something hidden) he is not a pervert nor does he take glee in causing pain, if there is any pleasure I suppose it is from catharsis. He is not like the Clintons.

Darth Vader is a perfect example of being a secondary psychopath (1970s definition). He cuts down swathes of enemies or force chokes people but not because he gets a raging hard on from all the killing.

Which reminds me of that part of Pulp Fiction where Vega finds out his car got scratched and gets angry, he says "I would do anything to have caught that guy! It would have been worth my car gettng scratched just so I could catch him!". Certain kinds of anger are addictive, it release painkiller chemicals. Hilary is the example of this. She loves getting mad and takes glee in her rage.

Putin is no saint, but I do not see constant sadistic joy. He grew up as a weak sickly child, had problems in his family, probably feels bitterness and disgruntled resentful anger at life (not cackling happy anger, or rage from someone getting in their way), something that a psychopath doesn't feel.

About how to trial this man:
We now go back to asking about judging by action or whether than can help it or not. The question forgets we can judge by intentions in one area, the area of justice which is blind an unbiased.

Example: If I put a collar on a persons neck with a bomb and told him to rob an elderly woman and if on another day a psychopath also robbed this elderly woman.

One could point out the result is the same, the psychopath can't help being a psychopath any more than the man with a collar bomb on his neck. But one is a matter of a person's will, the other is of control over individual actions themselves.
For the elderly lady, she has every right to not care, she can resent them equally, we cannot influence her opinion nor enforce what she should feel. But in the eyes of legal justice, we should make a distinction of intentions in a certain sense for pragmatic reasons.

A person who had a bomb attached to his neck. Or someone with an organic condition like schizophrenia or autism had their individual actions compromised, while the psychopath's actions occurred without coercion (neck bomb), being fully divorced/completely blind to reality (schizophrenia), or living separated/fogged up to reality (autism).

I think he should go to jail and be rightfully punished, but I don't believe he should be given the same exact treatment like a Ted Bundy. His inside is not the same as Bundy's, his actions stemmed likely from coercion outside his personal conscious will. Like the want vs desire distinction I make, you can desire Ice cream, but not want to eat it (cuz it'll make you fat). This difference means there is possibility of change. That is a huge distinction!

Want is of the personal conscious will, desire is of a impersonal impulse, a will that almost can feel like it exists with you, like it is not you. Psychopathy affects the personal will to it's core. Have you every heard a psychopath say "man this sure sucks, I don't like being one"? Not a single one so far. On the contrary I don't like having ASD and ADHD, they may affect my more impersonal will unknowingly and I act like an ass or be clueless/shortsighted, but my conscious personal will denounces them.


John Craig said...

Ga --
I agree with the first half of what you said, your analysis of Putin seems to be right on target. And I also agree with the second half of your comment, about the difference in will when it comes to crimes committed. But I'm not sure how the second half of what you said applies to Putin.

Great point, btw, about how you never hear a sociopath say, "I hate being a sociopath." They just figure it gives them free reign to do as they please, sort of like 007: they have a license to kill.....or in their case, to also rape or lie or exploit or whatever.