Paul Elovitz Responds (response article)

It is nice to be complimented on one’s “excellent” article. Rogers is most gentle in his implied criticism that Michele O’Donnell and I missed the point in reference to the motivation of David Kaczynski and his wife, specifically to the temptation of the reward. To liken Ted Kaczynski’s sister-in-law to “Lady Macbeth” seems both misguided and unfair to a beleaguered family. She (Linda Patrik) has reasons to feel distant from a brother-in-law who always treated her as an interloper, worried the family, and drained its resources.

David has been extremely devoted to a troubled, increasingly distant, and paranoid brother. He has had to relinquish his job as a social worker because of the needs of his brother’s defense and the difficulty of living a normal life in the spotlight of the media. Since the Kaczynskis are a middle class family of modest means, if they should claim the reward for the Unabomber, I suspect the money will be used to defend Ted against the death penalty and to compensate for lost income.

I would second Rogers’ assessment that “David Kaczynski will end up being a hero in everyone’s eyes but his own.” He cares deeply about his brother and was placed in a no-win situation by his realization that his “big brother” could have been bombing and killing people for 17 years. I would suggest that people focus on moral courage as a far more likely explanation of David’s actions than greed. They might also monitor their own feelings and examine the variety of impulses that each of us normally has during a high profile trial. Psychohistory can provide many insights into the group psychology surrounding the Kaczynskis’ 15 minutes of fame and I hope some of our colleagues will write about this aspect. I would welcome the opportunity to publish such research findings.

Page 127