Certainly he had an evil aspect.

'I think so--as for finding it in a chart, most astrologers seem to do so after having heard of the killer, so I don't know if that's possible, but then again, I feel like I can find some negative tendencies in a chart ie, Pluto squares and their need for control, and I've actually experienced these tendencies in people'

I think there was someone who posted on a thread here, commenting on a serial killer's chart I had put up. They said that there were some confiugrations in a man's chart that really did raise one or two red flags.

But as you say, it can be easy to be 'wise after the event' in looking at a chart.

I don't remember the discussion on sociopaths.



I don't really believe that anybody is 'born evil' either and that difficult configurations n a chart can work on differet levels. But then again, I have not looked at closely at the configurations Harding examines, which he claims are the same for both Manson and Haigh the acid bath killer, so maybe it is true that some midpoint trees are definitely more difficult to transcend than others.

I'd like to add onto the 8th House comments. 8th House-heavy charts primarily just indicate that a person is most likely to experience many facets of their psyche through painful, dark, trying situations and/or through delving into the more dark, mysterious, taboo areas of life. And this can actualize in many, many ways.

I could see, though, how a LOT of Air in combination with the 8th House could be a bit tricky, as these dark, taboo areas would be explored with more curiosity and detachment. But, then again, that could also make for intelligent, objective study of taboos, which is potentially very useful and difficult for most people to attain.

I have to go with Mary Ellen on this - I think that any person could potentially go towards good or bad, hero or villain, regardless of their inherent tendencies and astrological make-up. I think the most difficult-looking aspects are as likely to produce great evil as they are great heroism (as well as rather mundane, middle-of-the-road results). It depends on so many other factors - childhood, development, environment, circumstances, free will... I don't believe in inherent villainy, though I do agree that some are predisposed to explore dangerous territory more than others (which can result in villainy or just awareness of dangerous territory/the self's reaction to it, the latter of which, in itself, can PREVENT a person from doing terrible things).

I think it's difficult to near-impossible for most of us to be a hero or a villain, and no one can be all good or all evil. I think people generally are pretty in between, morally, perhaps leaning a bit towards good. But I also think it's more difficult to be extremely good than it is to be fairly bad, because goodness tends to take more effort and self-control. I'm just speculating and going on a tangent, though, so I'm cutting myself off!