As with many serial killers it seems his activity was triggered by a particular traumatic event, in this case, the break-up of his marriage 18 months ago;

I've often wondered about things like this and wonder if it is a chicken and egg question. Lots and lots of us suffer traumatic events, and yet, mercifully only the tiniest of percentages become serial killers. And I even wonder about that. Ted Bundy, did not seem to suffer an individual traumatic event, but rather may have been motivated by an all consuming rage. This may also be true of Jeffrey Dahmer.

What is more interesting is the marriage part. Although it caused quite a stir in feminist circles about thrity years ago, George Gilder's research into criminally violent behavior has never been refuted. It was originally titled Sexual Suicide. Political pressure was brought to bear on the publisher who withdrew the book shortly after publication. It was republished a few years later with a different title. He must have hit too close to home for some. I don't recall the precise numbers, but it seems that, in the US anyway, the vast majority of violent crimes (and other serious anti social acts) are committed by unmarried men. Violent crimes committed by women, although less common, showed no such pattern. A violent woman was no more likely to be married than unmarried. There is also a profile for serial killers (Gilder's work included all sorts of criminal behavior) that they are white, single, loners, in the rough age bracket of 18 - 35. In fact most violent crime is committed in that age demographic [ASIDE: There was a serious decline in violent crime in the US and all the politicians broke their arms patting themselves on the back taking credit for it. The fact is that there was a significant demographic shift: a dip in the population of men in that age bracket. There is a bulge coming and violent crime is inching up again. I'm certain the current crop of politicians will all assume responsbility for it]. That this man was married at all is surprising. Had I ever met Mr. Gilder I would have asked him if these men were single because they were crazy or crazy because they were single. He seemed to imply the latter.

There are exceptions. The so-called BTK killer was married for a long time. But that is rare. Bundy, Sam Berkowitz, the Hillside Stranglers, and others were all unmarried.

but at 37, he's somewhat older than I expected, and won't have Saturn in Leo. (I know Tom will be relieved about that!!).

Yes I am. It's bad enough having a Saturn like Ted Bundy's, I don't need more destructive individuals associated with my chart. 37 is a bit old for this, but these guys rarely start with the crimes they are ultimately charged with. Bundy may have killed a girl when he was about 13 or 14. Usually they work their way up to murder, and can't stop once they start, which is why I believe California's Zodiac killer (unsolved and now a very old case - DNA seems to have absolved a once-good now deceased suspect) died shortly after his final taunting letter to the San Francisco PD.

Tom.

Lots and lots of us suffer traumatic events, and yet, mercifully only the tiniest of percentages become serial killers. And I even wonder about that.

Tom, that's an excellent point, and the sort of thing we need to be thinking about. Thank you for raising it, and for the information about George Gilder's research, which in turn reminds me of something I've read about marriage making men happy and women unhappy, but perhaps that's just a one-eyed feminist theory!

There's always a danger in focussing on one particular feature that a group of people appear to have in common eg Saturn in Leo or a recent traumatic event. Life, people and astrology are all more complex than that.

It can lead us to overlook, for example, an individual's interaction with other people and other circumstances that may be less obvious than a divorce, but just as important.

We also need to think about the astrology of victims as well as the perpetrators of crimes. This raises the idea of fate, or fatedness which we 21st century Westerners are so uncomfortable about. It may turn out to have more to do with our profound connectedness, both to each other and the cosmos - a concept that western science, at least, is beginning to cope with.

I wish I could remember the name of the astrologer who wrote an excellent study of the natal charts of the children murdered at Dunblane, and identified common elements in the charts of those who died, which those who survived didn't have. The article didn't downplay the tragedy of that event, but it certainly dealt with the possibility that very little about it was accidental or random.

And there may be, for some people, real consolation in that. There's a very good book written by the mother of a young girl named Kirsa Jensen who went missing, and is assumed to have been murdered in NZ, in the 1980s. The only comfort she found through the whole dreadful experience of losing her daughter was meeting Elisabeth Kubler Ross, who asked the mother if Kirsa had displayed any sign of knowing what would happen to her. Her mother recalled three apparent signs and EKR told her that her daughter's soul had always known what would happen and that there had been nothing she, the mother, could have done to prevent it.

Now that may be simply a new age version of traditional religious consolation, with as much or as little weight as we choose to give it: your daughter's okay because she's in heaven or because it was her fate to die at age 14. Neither of these propositions is very easy to accept, but Mrs Jensen, at least, found more comfort in the second than the first, despite previously having a strong Christian faith.

The research about the propensity - if that's the right term - of unmarried men to commit serious crimes presents another scary prospect: all the "only boys" in China, coming of age in a rapidly changing society, and likely to find that there just aren't enough women for them to marry. Here are the figures from Wikipedia:

0-14 years: 20.8% (male 145,461,833; female 128,445,739)
15-64 years: 71.4% (male 482,439,115; female 455,960,489)
65 years and over: 7.7% (male 48,562,635; female 53,103,902) (2006 est.)

Hi Susan ? its good to see you in the forum.

I wish I could remember the name of the astrologer who wrote an excellent study of the natal charts of the children murdered at Dunblane, and identified common elements in the charts of those who died, which those who survived didn't have. The article didn't downplay the tragedy of that event, but it certainly dealt with the possibility that very little about it was accidental or random.

This must be the article ?Who will survive?? by Ken Gilman, past editor of Considerations. It?s available online at http://www.considerations-mag.com/artic ... urvive.htm

Hi Susan,

I don't want to go too far afield here, since it gets non astrological, but there are a couple of astrological points to be made.

Reagarding Gilder: his work boils down to a very basic fact (yes fact) that men and women are different. Not better, not worse, not smarter (although using standard IQ tests women do tend to score slightly higher than men), not dumber, just different. Men and women, it seems, compliment each other; they are not identical except for a few body parts. This idea so offended TV host Oprah Winfrey that when Geroge Gilder brought up the subject on her show (to which she invited him knowing who he was) she threw him off the stage! She should choke thenext tie the words "free speech" cross her mind.

Gilder's point re:crime is this. The overwhelming (and the statistics of the time were overwhelming) amount of violent crime, and other anti-social behavior, suicide, drug addiction, petty crime, etc are committed by unmarried men. No one has ever challeged those statistics. When women commit those acts, there is no such single overriding factor. It is more random and therefore the reasons are probably more complex. Again this statistic is irrefutble. It is a mathematical fact. So Gilder looked at another irrefutable fact: women have a biological attachment to children that a man can never have. Try to dispute that one, Oprah. Therefore the man's attachment is purely emotional.

He then took these irrefutable facts and drew conclusions. Now here, of course anyone is free to accept or reject Gilder's arguments, but his facts are not in dispute. He then theorized that if the emotional connection a man does have with children is taken from him or denied him (We're not making accusations here just observations) that what society gets is anti-social behavior. Now we can see why the feminists get upset. Gilder is suggesting, horror of horrors, that men are necessary to the proper functioning of society and being a sperm bank and a check book are not enough. Try not to personalize this. We're not talking individuals, yet; we're talking about society.

As for a real world example, in the USA black Americans families have been decimated by social engineering and changes in social mores. public programs etc that all discourage participation of fathers. If a poor man fathers a child and is living with or supporting in any way a poor mother to whom he is not married, her government benefits can be cut off. If the amount received from the government is less than the amount of the support, an economic decision is made and the father "disappears." I'm not excusing irresponsible behavior only demonstrating that well intended programs can and do have negative effects. If the well intended programs that have negative effecs become ingrained in a society, that part of the society enters a dangerous downward spiral. If we check prison populations, the number of black males are disproportionally represented. Coincidence or is Gilder on to something? Since his thesis, and other things he thinks, are not politically correct Oprah tossed him. Good thinking.

But astrology deals with the individual and how the individual reacts to his environment. What is in the chart or what should we be looking for that would reveal some of that information? Over on the mystery chart threads we've been looking at transits, progressions and directions that occur early in life as possibly formative.

The fact is that even after horrible marriages, both men and women are highly likely to try it again, and again and again. My own theory is that after two, or certainly three marraiges one ought to spend time with a mirror. But on the extreme scale what makes one individual who cannot find a mate become simply unhappy and unproductive (married men earn more than unmarried men and tend to have higher education levels, and live longer), and another turn violent. Like I said in the previous post: are they crazy because they are unmarried or unmarried because they are crazy.

This cannot explain a nut case. We can't look at Ted Bundy and say, "Gee Ted, all you needed was a good wife." This is where Gilder may be off base, but it is hard to justify social engineering based on a deviant. Back to the astrology, what is it in Ted Bundy's chart that makes him prone to killing as an outlet for his problems? Moderns tell us, "nothing." That Ted simply exercised his free will. I have a hard time with that. I'm not trying to excuse him or indicate he didn't deserve every one of those volts that slamed through his body in Florida's electric chair. I'm only trying to understand him.

There's always a danger in focusing on one particular feature that a group of people appear to have in common eg Saturn in Leo or a recent traumatic event. Life, people and astrology are all more complex than that.

It can lead us to overlook, for example, an individual's interaction with other people and other circumstances that may be less obvious than a divorce, but just as important.

This is why I've given up on "chart signatures." Ted Bundy and Silvio Rodriguez, a singer, were born four days apart and share many of the same chart signatures. The same is true of Adoplph Hitler and Charlie Chaplin. We have to look for far more and therefore what we seek is subtle.

We also need to think about the astrology of victims as well as the perpetrators of crimes. This raises the idea of fate, or fatedness which we 21st century Westerners are so uncomfortable about.

I think we need to think differently about fate. The word "fate" drags up imagages of inevitablility. But is it? Sometimes. A person having been born with diabetes will be forced to live a certain way that a person without the disease will not be forced to live. But if there is an indication of victimhood in the chart, it does not necessarily mean that the victim and predator wil come into contact. If the victim never encounters a potential murderer he or she will go through life without being murdered. But under the right circumstances, if they do meet up, a horrible result can ensue. This has nothing to do with being careful either. Bundy murdered a girl sleeping in her dormitory. She did nothing to encourage him or behaved in a seriously careless manner. It was just horrible luck.

Tom

What happened?

I had responded to this a few minutes ago with the Ken Gillman link, the post was published and now it's disappeared!

There must be something in the air. Posts are vanishing from all forums lately.

In any case, the point I was making was, that the mundane data relevant to Ipswich is the granting of it's charter on 25th May 1200 (old style), set for midnight. Midnight, because when such and such a thing is determined to come into effect on such and such a date, the thing comes into effect when that calendar date first comes round - at midnight.

The triple conjunction of Jupiter, Mars and Mercury (a conjunction by declination too I believe) occured on 10th December, when Anelli Anderton's body was found. It was the discovery of Anderton's body, that gave rise to the explosion of 'serial killer' all over the press.

The beginning of events, in retrospect, is that last sighting of Tania Nicolls on CCTV, but in the public conciousness, the serial killer phenomenon was born on with the discovery of Anderton's body under the perfecting of the triple conjunction.

Looking at the mundane data for Ipswich, this conjunction occurs right upon the midheaven of the chart, bringing Ipswich to considerable public attention. As it would be rare for a triple conjunction to occur right on an angle of any chart, then it seems easy to understand why Ipswich had more public attention at this time than in any time in it's history. It was also the biggest police investigation ever undertaken in Ipswich, and the authorities are embodied in the midheaven.

The Sun in the Ipswich chart, is at Gemini 3, exactly opposite the triple conjunction.

I wonder why nobody else has mentioned this conjunction in relation to these events.

I would interested to know the mundane data for Atlantic City, to see what the conjunction was doing in that chart, because there must be some astrological connecting thread, linking these two areas where such uncannily similar and unusual crimes were taking place at the same time.

Okay, second try.....................

In any case, the point I was making was, that the mundane data relevant to Ipswich is the granting of it's charter on 25th May 1200 (old style), set for midnight. Midnight, because when such and such a thing is determined to come into effect on such and such a date, the thing comes into effect when that calendar date first comes round - at midnight.

Hate to be a killjoy, but was midnight the begining of the day in 1200?

Tom

Tom Stephens was arrested at 7:20am approx on 18 Dec in Trimley Felixstowe.
Stephen Wright was arrested at 5am approx on 19 Dec in Ipswich.
Can these charts show that the police arrested the right man/men?
As the police initiated the action(arresting)they get the 1st and the suspects gets the 7th.
In the first chart the police are represented by Jupiter in Sag. Though in its domicile, it's locked up in the 12th, unaspectecd except by the Moon at 29 Scorpio approaching them. The Moon's late degree suggests a rapid change of circumstances probably indicating the 2nd man's arrest the next day, before dawn, leaving Stephens no longer the sole suspect. Stephen's sig is Mercury in Sag, in Detriment but surprisingly in its own term and face retaining some degnity. It's right on the AC ---perhaps indicating the immediate wide-spread media coverage of his personal life after the arrest. Its recent square to Uranus on his MC may be to do with his being suspended from his Tesco job prior to the arrest. Although it's under the Sun's beams(the Sun ruling the 2nd part of the 8th), it will not catch up with the Sun in Sag; it's conjunct the antiscion of the Part of Fortune and it will not make any more aspect except with a square with the N Node--- so probably he'll not be charged.
In the 2nd chart the Police are Mars in Sag; the Moon has just separated from Mars(one degree)and approaching Mercury(ruling 8th and 10th). Mars also rules the 12th house of imprisoment and Moon is translating the light of Mars and Mercury to the antiscion of Venus, Wright's sig. Venus has no dignity in Capricorn and is in the turned 8th. Uranus on the IC clsosely squares Moon and sextiles Venus.... so possibly sudden changes taking place again? The 10th rulers in both charts are under teh horizon and weak, which may suggest that it may take a while for the truth to come out...

Hate to be a killjoy, but was midnight the begining of the day in 1200?

No joy killed.

At what time did the date change in 1200? Sunrise?

sunset, and a mid day chart would probably be most sensible as it is likely that the charter was granted sometime between start of business and sunset, I would suspect... Granny

sunset, and a mid day chart would probably be most sensible as it is likely that the charter was granted sometime between start of business and sunset, I would suspect...

I disagree, because when something is set to become legal at a future date, then as soon as that date comes around, i.e. at midnight, regardless of that not being the break of the diurnal day, then this is the best time to use for such mundane charts.

The charter was set to become official on the 25th of May, so the moment that the 24th turns into the 25th, and the charter becomes legal, then this is the chart to use.

In any case, it is the midnight chart that places the triple conjunction right at midheaven for Ipswich on the day that these events became recognised as a serial killer phenomenon, which speaks for itself.

I disagree, because when something is set to become legal at a future date, then as soon as that date comes around, i.e. at midnight, regardless of that not being the break of the diurnal day, then this is the best time to use for such mundane charts.

I think the point is that the day became legal at sunrise (a far more sensible time than midnight, but it would put a damper on a lot of New Year's Eve parties). This is one of the problems we have casting old charts from dates alone. What's so special about midnight? Sunrise is at least an obvious beginning.

Tom

It emerged yesterday that Stephen Wright was notorious among prostitutes as a cross-dresser and I thought the Venus in Capricorn(his sig in the second chart) would fit that description...