JEFFREY DAHMER WAS AT OUR HALLOWEEN PARTY

Jeffrey Dahmer was at our Halloween party. One month after the release of Dahmer, the infamous serial killer and cannibal was slinking through my very own college campus, lurking in frat houses and local bars. Ironic, considering my disgust when watching one of the final episodes of the Netflix series, in which Dahmer receives a letter in prison from a fan whose classmates had dressed up as him for Halloween. Thirty years later, his unmistakable wire-rimmed aviator frames had become a costume party staple once again.

The resurgence of Jeffrey Dahmer in popular culture has received mixed reactions. Some feel that the series placed a sufficient focus on the seventeen victims and the system that failed them. Others find it to be overly dramatized and sympathetic toward the serial killer. It’s up for debate whose legacy is really at stake when it comes to true crime media. Does this genre truly honor the legacies of the victims, or does it instead preserve the legacy of murderers, immortalizing them for entertainment value?

Those involved in the series have insisted that Dahmer was created to give the victims a voice, not to highlight Dahmer’s story and exploit their pain. Evan Peters, who portrays Dahmer, said in a promotional video: “It’s called The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, but it’s not just him and his backstory: It’s the repercussions, it’s how society and our system failed to stop him multiple times because of racism, homophobia.”1

1 Cohen, Anne. “Something is Off in This Trailer for ‘DAHMER - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story,’” Netflix, September 16, 2022, https://www. netflix.com/tudum/articles/dahmer-monster-teaser-evan-peters-ryanmurphy-show. Dahmer’s creator, Ryan Murphy, has supported this idea, saying, “It’s really about white privilege. It’s about systemic racism. It’s about homophobia.”2 Their proclaimed mission was to show viewers how racism and homophobia allowed a white killer to operate for thirteen years.

And perhaps it was critical to display the horrific evidence that backs this claim up and emphasizes the absurdity of our system’s failures. Perhaps it was not. I can’t say if there’s necessarily a step-by-step “right” way to go about the actual production of a true crime series. This genre of media is inherently triggering, heart-wrenching, and gruesome. It’s a fine line to walk, knowing when violence is there for sensationalism’s sake. I’d like to believe Dahmer’s creators made a valiant effort to be as respectful as possible while still producing a series that achieved their goal.

But when does advocacy and social criticism become merely that? When does it start to feel performative? Can the creators of Dahmer truly argue that they made the show to honor the legacies of the victims when the victims’ own families felt harmed by its release?

One major source of backlash against the series has come from family members who felt forced to relive their trauma because of it. As Eric Perry, cousin

2 Verhoeven, Beatrice. “Ryan Murphy Says He Reached Out to ‘20 of the Victims’ Family and Friends’ for ‘Dahmer’ Series: ‘Not a Single Person Responded to Us.’” The Hollywood Reporter, October 27, 2022. https://www. hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/ryan-murphy-says-he-reached-outto-20-of-the-victims-family-and-friends-for-dahmer-series-not-a-singleperson-responded-to-us-1235250610/.

WRITER JAYDE EMERY GRAPHIC DESIGNER CAMILLE ANDREW

to victim Errol Lindsey, wrote on Twitter: “My cousins wake up every few months at this point with a bunch of calls and messages and they know there’s another Dahmer show. It’s cruel.”3 What’s worse is that these calls and messages were the first time that some family members even got wind of the series.4 Many have claimed that Murphy never reached out to inform them that Dahmer was being made. It has been argued that it was unnecessary to do so as the events are public record, and Murphy has denied the claims altogether. Regardless, the fact stands that several family members of Dahmer’s victims felt personally harmed by the series.

Others, like Lindsey’s sister Rita Isbell, felt that the series was merely a way to “mak[e] money off of this tragedy.”5 Granted, Netflix and the creators of Dahmer may have no legal obligation to compensate the families, but the show itself seems to propagate a different ideology.6

There are two instances in which Dahmer favorably portrays compensation for the victims’ families. The first is the scene in which Shirley Hughes, mother to victim Anthony Hughes, is encouraged to file a civil suit against Dahmer’s father for the profits of his book regarding Jeffrey.7 Second, viewers are introduced to Joseph Zilber, who purchased and destroyed all

3 Eric Perry, Twitter post, September 2022, 11:48 PM, https://twitter. com/ericthulhu/status/1573157356728451074. 4 Perry also wrote in an earlier Tweet: “My family found out when everyone else did.” (Eric Perry, Twitter post, September 2022, 11:43 PM, https:// twitter.com/ericthulhu/status/1573155975795822592.) 5 Vlamis, Kelsey. “My brother was murdered by Jeffrey Dahmer. Here’s what it was like watching the Netflix show that recreated the emotional statement I gave in court.” Insider, September 26, 2022. https://www. insider.com/rita-isbell-sister-jeffrey-dahmer-victim-talks-about-netflixshow-2022-9. 6 In the 1990s, the families of eleven of the victims filed civil suits against Dahmer, most receiving awards in the millions. But because Dahmer had no money and was serving life in prison, the families didn’t collect. If the families were to collect in the future, the money was expected to come from anything paid to Dahmer for movie or book rights. However, given that Dahmer died in prison in 1994, the possibility of receiving money from this avenue never panned out. As a result, media created post-mortem about his life and crimes continued to exploit the victims and their families’ pain, without the families seeing a dime. (“Dahmer’s victims awarded $70 million.” UPI, August 12, 1992. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/08/12/Dahmers-victimsawarded-70-million/8473713592000/; “Family of Victim Files $3 Billion Suit Against Accused Serial Killer.” Deseret News, August 10, 1991. https://www.deseret.com/1991/8/10/18935330/family-of-victim-files-3-billion-suit-againstaccused-serial-killer.) 7 According to the show, the suit was reportedly settled out of court for $900,000. However, Lionel Dahmer’s book ultimately performed poorly and did not contribute to the families. of Dahmer’s belongings from eleven of the victims’ families to ensure that Dahmer didn’t gain further publicity through an auction. Each of those families received a share of the $407,225 that Zilber paid. The show’s complimentary depictions of these scenarios lead me to believe that the show’s creators are in favor of the families receiving compensation for the violence inflicted upon their loved ones and for the exploitation of their pain. So why aren’t they putting those ideals into practice?

Creators of true crime media who truly want to honor the legacies of the victims should first be reaching out to their families, notifying them of the production, and allowing them the choice of being involved or giving their input. (And, yes, we can circle back to the debate around if this actually happened in the case of Dahmer, but I am not here to play judge to a “he said, she said” dispute.)

Second, they should be donating (and telling viewers where to donate!) to either the families or to organizations that support the groups that were harmed, while recognizing that no amount of money could ever truly be compensation for their heartache. In Dahmer’s case, that includes members of the Black, Latino, Asian, and LGBTQ+ communities. If the intention is to pay tribute to those who suffered rather than to milk their pain for a money grab, this should pose no issue.

I don’t know if there is a correct way to make true crime media, or if there’s a way to ensure that nobody has to see a person dressed up as their family member’s killer ever again. There are always going to be individuals who consume this genre and romanticize it, minimize its damage, and demand that people “learn to take a joke” when they impersonate those responsible for inflicting so much pain. But I am certain that ways exist to genuinely help those who have been harmed and honor their legacies, to go beyond advocacy and move towards action.