The ‘Slender Man’ Stabbing Case: A New Chapter Unfolds
The case of Morgan Geyser, the Wisconsin woman who attempted to murder her classmate in the name of the fictional character “Slender Man,” has once again captured public attention. Despite concerns raised by the state regarding potential “red flags” in her behavior, a judge has ruled that Geyser, now 22, will proceed with her planned conditional release from a mental health institute. This decision marks a significant turn in a case that has haunted the state for nearly a decade, raising questions about mental illness, accountability, and the potential for rehabilitation.
The ruling, delivered by Waukesha County Circuit Judge Michael Bohren, rejected a last-minute plea from the State Department of Health Services to keep Geyser in custody. This plea was made following previous unsuccessful attempts by Geyser’s defense team to secure her release. The state’s concerns stemmed from Geyser’s relationship with a collector of murder memorabilia and her expressed interest in violent books. These factors, they argued, posed a continued risk to the community and warranted her continued institutionalization.
The initial crime, which occurred in May 2014, involved Geyser and her friend, Anissa Weier, then both 12 years old, luring their classmate, Payton Leutner, into a wooded area. There, Geyser, spurred on by Weier, brutally stabbed Leutner 19 times. Miraculously, Leutner survived the attack, but the incident left an indelible scar on all involved and the wider community. The motivation behind the crime, as Geyser confessed to investigators, was to appease the fictional horror character known as Slender Man. This claim led to Geyser being found not guilty by reason of mental defect, highlighting the complex interplay between mental illness and criminal responsibility.
This case has captivated the nation due to the sheer absurdity of the crime. How could a 12-year-old attempt to murder another child based on a fictional character? It raises numerous questions about the power of suggestion, mental illness and how much responsibility children have for their actions. This story continues to evolve even to this day as Geyser prepares for conditional release.
Dr. Gail Saltz, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College, emphasized the high standard required for a finding of mental illness as the cause of a crime. According to Saltz, the standard involves an identifiable illness that significantly impairs one’s ability to understand the wrongfulness of their actions. This high bar underscores the complexities of cases involving mental illness and the legal system, where determining culpability and ensuring public safety require careful consideration of psychological factors.
The State’s Concerns and the Defense’s Rebuttal
The Wisconsin State Department of Health Services’ request for reconsideration centered on two primary concerns: Geyser’s connection with a collector of murder memorabilia and her engagement with violent literature. Prosecutors argued that these factors indicated a continued fascination with violence and a potential risk to public safety. They highlighted the fact that Geyser had not initially disclosed her reading of a violent book to her therapy team, raising further doubts about her transparency and progress in treatment.
However, Geyser’s defense attorney, Tony Cotton, refuted these claims, asserting that the staff at the Winnebago Mental Health Institute were fully aware of the collector’s visits and the books Geyser was reading. He pointed out that the collector had visited Geyser three times in June 2023 and that all reading materials were approved by her care team. Furthermore, Cotton emphasized that Geyser had ended the relationship with the collector upon discovering that he was selling items she had sent him, demonstrating a level of insight and responsible decision-making.
Cotton argued that Geyser’s condition had not deteriorated and that she did not pose a greater threat to society than before. He emphasized the progress she had made during her seven years of institutionalization, highlighting her acceptance of responsibility for her actions and her commitment to ongoing treatment. The defense’s arguments sought to reassure the court that Geyser’s release was carefully planned and that appropriate safeguards were in place to manage any potential risks.
This back and forth from the prosecution and the defense is an example of the two sides trying to win the favor of the judge. The state is concerned that she is still a threat to society and they believe her fascination with murderabilia could lead her down a dark path again. The defense is trying to paint the picture of a changed woman who is no longer a threat to society. The judge had to listen to both sides and make his decision, which he ultimately decided to side with the defense.
It is up to Morgan Geyser to prove the state wrong. The world will be watching her as she attempts to integrate back into society.
Expert Perspectives on Morbid Curiosity and Violent Tendencies
During the hearing, Judge Bohren also heard testimony from three psychologists who had initially recommended Geyser’s release. While acknowledging the concerns surrounding Geyser’s interest in violent topics, these experts offered a nuanced perspective on the psychological factors at play. They explained that for some individuals, engaging with violent material can serve as a controlled outlet for exploring morbid curiosity.
Dr. Gail Saltz elaborated on this point, noting that many people consume violent content as a means of vicariously experiencing and processing dark fantasies. She cited the popularity of horror movies as evidence of the human tendency to seek out and derive satisfaction from simulated experiences of fear and violence. This perspective suggests that Geyser’s interest in violent material may not necessarily indicate a predisposition to violence but rather a way of engaging with such themes in a safe and controlled environment.
However, Saltz cautioned that for individuals with a history of violent behavior, exposure to materials related to their crimes could potentially be triggering. She emphasized the importance of considering the individual’s past actions and the potential for such materials to reinforce or amplify violent urges. This nuanced understanding highlights the complexities of assessing risk in cases involving individuals with both mental illness and a history of violence.
The experts bring up a good point in that people may enjoy these forms of media as a way to entertain themselves and nothing more. However, in Geyser’s case, she was convicted of a violent crime. This muddies the water quite a bit and leaves a lot of room for debate.
As technology progresses and there are more forms of entertainment, this debate will only grow louder. What responsibilities does society have in terms of violence in media? What responsibilities do parents have in terms of what their children are watching?
Conditional Release and Ongoing Monitoring
Despite the state’s arguments, Judge Bohren ultimately concluded that Geyser no longer posed a significant danger to society, paving the way for her conditional release. As part of the conditions of her release, Geyser will be subject to ongoing monitoring and treatment. Her next court appearance is scheduled for April 28, according to court documents obtained by Fox News Digital, indicating continued oversight of her progress and compliance with the terms of her release.
Dr. Gail Saltz highlighted the fact that many individuals who commit violent crimes, even those without a finding of mental illness, are eventually released back into society after serving their time. She emphasized that Geyser’s case, while unique due to the involvement of mental illness, is not entirely unprecedented. Saltz noted that evaluations for release often focus on factors such as acknowledging the crime and demonstrating a commitment to rehabilitation, factors that Geyser has seemingly met.
However, Saltz also stressed the importance of considering the victim in this case, Payton Leutner, and the profound trauma she endured. The attack, Saltz acknowledged, was unbelievably traumatic, and the long-term psychological impact on Leutner cannot be overstated. While acknowledging the need for rehabilitation and the potential for recovery, Saltz underscored the importance of remembering the victim and the lasting consequences of the crime.
This case highlights the importance of keeping up with your mental health. The attack was traumatizing for everyone involved. It is important for those who need mental health assistance to receive it.
Additionally, it is important to consider the victim, Payton Leutner. She was only 12 years old when she was stabbed 19 times. She is lucky to be alive and hopefully she is receiving the mental health assistance that she needs as well.
The Aftermath and Lingering Questions
The release of Morgan Geyser has sparked a wave of reactions, ranging from relief and hope to fear and outrage. While some believe that Geyser has paid her debt to society and deserves a chance to rebuild her life, others remain concerned about the potential for her to re-offend. The case raises fundamental questions about the nature of justice, the limits of rehabilitation, and the balance between individual rights and public safety.
Anissa Weier, Geyser’s accomplice in the stabbing, was also found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in a mental hospital. In 2021, she was released on the condition that she live with her father and wear a GPS monitor. The release of both Geyser and Weier marks the end of one chapter in this disturbing case but opens up new questions about their reintegration into society and the long-term impact of their actions.
As Morgan Geyser embarks on her conditional release, she faces the daunting task of rebuilding her life and proving to the world that she is no longer a threat. The eyes of the community, the legal system, and the media will be upon her, scrutinizing her every move. Whether she can successfully navigate this challenging path remains to be seen. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities of mental illness and criminal justice and the enduring impact of violent crime on victims, perpetrators, and society as a whole.
The “Slender Man” stabbing case will likely continue to be debated and analyzed for years to come. It is a case that touches upon fundamental questions about human nature, the power of belief, and the responsibility we have to protect one another, especially the most vulnerable among us. As Geyser and Weier attempt to move forward with their lives, their story serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked mental illness and the importance of early intervention and treatment.