Edmund Emil Kemper III: The Co-Ed Killer

Edmund Emil Kemper III was born in Burbank, California on 18 December 1948. He is more commonly known by the title of “The co-ed killer” because of the numerous murders of girls attending co-education schools and acts of necrophilia he committed on them during the 1970’s (Greig, 2012). No one is suddenly made into a killer overnight, so there must be a source that the motivation to kill comes from. In Kemper’s case there were multiple sources. The toxic relationship he had with his mother as well as the internal feelings of inadequacy and a desire to have power were large factors in his compulsion to kill. Of course there could be many more contributing factors to add to the equation, but the aforementioned three had the most weight in Kemper’s life.
Growing up, Kemper’s parents separated when he was a child. He ended up moving up north with his mother and sister to Montana where his mother got remarried. She had a tight hold of and would constantly punish him, attempting to make him tougher. At times, she would even lock him in the cellar as a form of punishment. Eventually the tolerance limit was reached regarding his behavior and he was sent to his father’s

parent’s ranch in California where he hated it. His grandmother was just like his mother in a controlling sense and at 14 years old, he killed her. Then, he killed his grandfather before he saw his wife’s dead body. These were his first kills and he was charged with homicide as well as a stay in a mental hospital for four years. When he was released, he was sent back to his mother’s care. She was deeply disappointed in him yet Kemper attempted many times to try and please her but nothing seemed to work (Leibman, 1989). In 1973 on Easter weekend, he killed his mother (Greig, 2012).
Evidently, there was a major malfunction in their relationship. The bond was much too strong and did more harm than good. On Mrs. Kemper’s part, she threw off confusing signs to her son about where her concern laid. She wanted desperately to make him into a tough man and she most likely believed she was using a tough love tactic to achieve her goal. Through consistent punishments and a high standard to aspire to, she felt justified in her parenting style towards him. In short, the ends justified the means. However, to a child, such treatment seems cold and incomprehensible. There is no doubt that this treatment stunted Kemper in his confidence as an individual and is what drove him to kill his mother. In this instance, matricide was a way to end the overbearing relationship that was taking place. In other words, when the mother was dead, the problem was dead as well (Catanesi, Rocca, Candeli, Carabellese, 2015). It is a simple way to end a problem by just doing away with it altogether, but when the problem is prolonged, then it is worth the hassle.
Then again on Kemper’s part, he tried endlessly to please his mother and it is plausible to bring in Freud’s Oedipus complex.

Most people would try to please someone but give up eventually when he or she sees that nothing is going to work. This train of thought was not there in this case. Therefore, the idea that somewhere deep in Kemper’s mind he intensely wanted to be in a sexual relationship with his mother and win her affection can explain why he never tired of trying. In this Freudian game of hedonistic calculus, the desire to be with his mother outweighed the relentless efforts he put into the relationship. To him, it did not matter how many times he would have to try, the fact that the possibility of being in a relationship with his mother was existent in his mind was enough to make it all

worthwhile.
However, it is logical to see that both these concepts of matricide and the Oedipus complex end up contradicting themselves. If Kemper was so overcome with desire for his mother and would never tire of attempting to please her, then he would not feel the need to break off the relationship they had, despite it being a strained one. Within the Oedipus complex in his mind, there was no inherent problem, only a singular goal that must be achieved. In turn, the matricide that took place was to stop the never ending maternal pressures that Kemper felt which would not be experienced if he was solely controlled by his Oedipal desire. The only way to reconcile both ideas of thought is to combine them. The bottom line is that the relationship between Kemper and his mother was infinitely complicated and caused a starting point for his problems.
Resulting from the maternal complications he faced, Kemper developed a sense of inadequacy. Because he was never able to satisfy his mother, despite willing to try over and over, he created a feeling of not being good enough within himself. The first instance of this comes from the fact that his sister was the favorite in the family. He became angry at her for this reason and got back at her by killing her cat (Leibman, 1989). By lashing out and killing something of hers she loved, he was trying to establish himself. The idea that he could overcome his feeling of inferiority by killing will be a recurring incidence in further discussion. However, before he went on his killing sprees, he was a victim of rejection which furthered his feeling of being less than others.
He was an incredibly tall child but feared he would be taunted by other children despite towering over them (Greig, 2012). The idea that Kemper wanted no part of being bullied shows just how much he did not want to face rejection. Of course no one wants to be rejected but someone as tall as he was could easily use an intimidation tactic or the “gentle giant” tactic he used later on in life to lure hitchhikers in his car (Leyton, 1989). Being able to cope would have been beneficial but with a lowered sense of self set off first by his mother, the desire to be accepted is much more precious than learning to overcome this obstacle. At this point in time, the only thing young Kemper wants to do it keep from being set apart from others. However, this did not work and he only kept getting further from others.
In another instance of rejection, he applied to be a police officer in Santa Cruz but was denied because of his immense height. He reached a height of 6’9 in his adult life and eventually used it to his advantage, but could not use it to catch those who he would eventually be like. After facing this career rejection, he attempted to emulate who they were. He would hang around a police bar, have conversations with the cops there, and bought a car that looked like a police car (Greig, 2012). He tried to make up for the areas in which he lacked. He never became a policeman but getting close to them in casual settings and even trying to give off appearances he was one were his attempts at filling the rejections void. Then again, the façade could not hold up forever. Eventually he used the agents that rejected him, his height and a police styled car, to bring him victims of his own.
Not only did his mother foster an atmosphere of rejection, but so did the environment around him. The world is not necessarily a kind place, but rejections come and go. This cannot be said for Kemper. The desire to prove himself to be someone significant fueled his desire to kill. By taking lives, he could get back at the world in a sense and show that he could be capable of something. No longer would he be a too tall police academy reject. He could do something great but not in the sense of positive. This is not to say that Kemper was fueled by a desire for infamy and his name on headlines. It is to say that he wanted to amount to something in some form or fashion and to break out of the mold of rejection. The only defining point is the way he went about forming his personal self-worth.