The Cult of Cameron, Part IV
Pretty Persuasive
At 10 PM, April 17, 1974, at Central Washington State College, east of Seattle, a 19-year-old biology major named Susan Elaine Rancourt had just left a meeting at Munson Hall for students interested in becoming Resident Assistants. Hard-working and studious, the young, curvaceous blonde from Anchorage, Alaska, maintained a 4.0 grade average. During the previous summer, she worked two full-time jobs to pay her tuition.
After the meeting, Susan began walking back to her dorm at Barto Hall. She had left some clothes in the washer and had plans to join a friend to see a movie. It was then that she encountered a man in his mid-twenties who was having some difficulty carrying a stack of books due to an apparent injury, evinced by the sling he wore on his arm. With her characteristic helpfulness, Susan offered assistance. The polite, clean-cut man gratefully accepted, and the two of them began making their way to the parking lot.
And Susan’s decision to assist this charming stranger would prove to be a mistake. Her last.
The stranger’s car was parked near a railroad trestle in a deserted area of the parking lot in the late April evening. As Susan leaned over to put the books into his car, the stranger (who did not have an injured arm) bludgeoned Susan into unconsciousness and drove off with her.
The stranger turned out to be notorious serial killer Ted Bundy. And the meeting at Munson Hall that Susan had attended was the last time anyone on campus reported seeing her alive.
While we cannot be certain of the methods Bundy used to lure Susan away, we do know that one of Bundy’s frequently-used tactics was to feign injury using a sling and “accidentally” dropping a stack of books. Moreover, as investigation into Susan Rancourt’s mysterious disappearance continued, two other students at Central Washington State reported being approached by a stranger that very night. He introduced himself as “Ted” and was wearing a sling on his arm.
(One such would-be victim sensed something was off when they approached Bundy’s car, a Volkswagen Beetle, and noticed that the front passenger seat was missing. She set the books down on his car and quickly left. The other decided to leave when Bundy apparently dropped his keys in the dark parking lot and asked the young lady to help him look for them. She set the books down and left.)
We also don’t know what horrors were inflicted upon Susan once she fell into Bundy’s clutches. But we do know that Bundy usually took his victims to secondary locations where he would rape and murder them. Bundy was also known to have revisited the corpses of his victims, which he simply abandoned in the woods, and perform further sexual acts on them, until decomposition and destruction by wild animals made such acts too unsavory, even by Bundy’s depraved standards.
He was also known to decapitate some of his victims, keeping their heads in his home as mementos.
Susan’s skull was found on Taylor Mountain on March 3, 1975, 10 1/2 months after her disappearance, along with the skulls of three other victims.
And how could poor Susan realize that the stranger she assisted would turn out to be a monster? By the standards of the day, Bundy was regarded as handsome, even charismatic and charming. I will say that he certainly looks innocuous, with his college preppie exterior and reserved, polite manner. He was clearly intelligent, and could have had a bright future ahead of him as a lawyer. Even Judge Edward Cowart, who presided over Ted Bundy’s trial and sentenced him to death, was impressed by Bundy. “You’re a bright young man,” Cowart said. “You’d have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner.”
Bundy certainly didn’t appear evil or dangerous. Yet that’s precisely what he was.
And young women of the day, conditioned all their lives to be helpful, were only too glad to assist the charming man with the injured arm carry some books to his car.
The exact number of young women who fell prey to Ted Bundy’s heinous acts may remain unknown, but he did confess to thirty murders. The actual number may be much higher, even 100 or more.
Now, why would I begin an article about Cameron Herrin with a horrifying story regarding one of the most ruthless and perverted serial killers in U.S. history? This isn’t to suggest that there’s any sort of comparison between Ted Bundy and Cameron Herrin. Far from it. Cameron Herrin is a reckless thrill-seeker who should have shown more regard for the lives and safety of those around him, but I don’t believe he ever intentionally harmed anyone. Bundy, on the other hand, was an extraordinarily depraved, evil individual who very much intended harm.
It’s not that there’s any similarity between the minds of Ted Bundy and Cameron Herrin. However, Herrin’s supporters, who are predominantly female, seem to assess him by a comparable standard.
To explain, Cameron Herrin’s supporters have been accused of supporting him for his looks. For instance, Dr. Todd Grande, a mental health professional with a YouTube channel, suggests that they are motivated by an “attractiveness bias.”
The supporters, of course, deny this. But this claim rings hollow when you find the numerous assertions of his innocence based entirely on his looks.
A few examples:
What is equally distressing about these quotes is that both these commenters show no sympathy for the victims, nor for David Raubenolt, who lost his wife and daughter, nor for Jessica’s parents, Bob and Pamela Reisinger, who lost a daughter and granddaughter. Instead, their empathy is reserved solely for the perpetrator. This is literally the first comments they had made about this situation, and all they can do is feel sorry for the perpetrator.
I really don’t know the best way to show just how many people think they know that Cameron is innocent because they “see innocence in his eyes” or words to that effect. Space considerations would make it unreasonable to screen cap every single instance or post a link to each one. I do know that TikTok (undoubtedly the social media outlet with the lowest average IQ) is inundated with such videos (and comments under these videos) claiming Cameron’s innocence and how they can see the innocence by looking at (read: into) his eyes.
Just go onto to TikTok and do a search for “Cameron Herrin innocence eyes” and see the results.
And it is here that I will drop the truth-bomb that Cameron Herrin’s supporters need to hear: you can’t tell if someone is innocent or guilty by their looks. If you could, there would be no need for trials. Judges would just look at a defendant and ascertain their innocence or guilt needing no further evidence.
They deny this vehmently, but Cameron’s supporters do judge based on appearance. And because of his looks, Cameron Herrin can only be totally innocent, according to them.
For instance, on Instagram, one Cameron Cultist posted an illustration of Cameron in docket, and made certain remarks about those inmates appearing in docket with him.
Accompanying this picture on Instagram was this commentary:
“And I get it, it’s not on the look,” she says, despite having already judged everyone in the docket based solely on their looks, labeling them “criminals, alcoholics, murderers, killers.”
She doesn’t know what these men are being charged with, nor does she know if they are guilty of anything. People have been wrongfully arrested before. That’s why we have trials: to determine guilt or innocence, and then to punish or exonerate accordingly.
The absence of self-awareness in this situation is both shocking and amusing. She asserts that it’s not about appearances, yet she has judged everyone in the docket as guilty of heinous crimes with no knowledge of the crimes they’re being accused of, much less if any of them are guilty. She then adamantly declares Cameron’s innocence, claiming she can tell “just by looking into his eyes.”
But she knows it’s not about looks! After she judges every single person in that photograph (except the bailiffs) based solely on their looks.
Another hard truth becomes necessary here: God did not impart a special gift to Cameron Herrin’s supporters, enabling them to ascertain innocence or guilt by looking into someone’s eyes.
Although space limitations make it impractical to post screenshots of every instance where Cameron Herrin’s supporters have gushed over his looks, I will include some additional examples.
I will now directly address the cultish supporters of Cameron Herrin: In my country (since most of you seem to be from the Middle East), shelters for battered women are filled to the brim with women who are older and more seasoned than you, who believed they understood the men in their lives. However, these men, once perceived as kind, attractive, and charming, revealed themselves to be abusers.
Cameron’s attractiveness is irrelevant. Attractiveness does not equate to virtue; I have encountered attractive individuals who were cruel and selfish, even to the point of malignant narcissism. Conversely, I have met those deemed physically unattractive who are truly wonderful human beings.
Personal attractiveness does not tell you anything about anyone. Is that much clear to you?
I don’t harbor hatred towards Cameron Herrin. It’s impossible for me to feel either fondness or aversion; I don’t know him. The issue arises when you, equally unfamiliar with him, don’t hesitate to express alarmingly fervent adoration. You’ve seen him in a handful of TikTok videos. You witnessed him in court at his sentencing hearing, where he remained mostly silent. How can you claim to know him so well? Is it because a select few in the courtroom, vetted by his attorney, spoke favorably of him? That’s not sufficient for truly understanding someone. There are no shortcuts to genuinely getting to know a person.
The message is clear: if you think you can see innocence in Cameron Herrin’s eyes, you’re an ideal target for those who would take advantage of you. Even more concerning is that by sharing these thoughts on social media, you’re openly displaying your naivety to the world.
Those of you who think Cameron’s sentence was too severe, I have no real problems with you. But the judge did warn him that if he decided that there was no legal basis to depart from the sentencing guidelines, that Cameron Herrin would be sentenced according to those guidelines. The second-degree felony of vehicular homicide means 9–15 years per victim. Two victims means 18–30 years.
The Raubenolts and the Reisingers wanted the maximum penalty for Cameron Herrin. There are arguments against that. For one thing, he has no priors. For another, he pleaded guilty, meaning he is taking responsibility for his actions and the tragic results they brought about.
But there are also arguments against giving him the minimum of 18 years. He was driving over 2 1/2 times the speed limit, which, as I pointed out in a previous article, is a third-degree felony, even if no harm results. Furthermore, the event data recorder (the car’s “black box”) indicated that he was egregiously violating speed limits, not just committing minor infractions but misdemeanors and felonies. Indeed, there were fourteen such violations recorded in the four days leading up to his fatal collision with Jessica and Lillia.
In light of this, I don’t believe Cameron should have gotten the minimum of 18 years. Not just because he is the one who struck and killed Jessica and Lillia Raubenolt. But also because he violated speed limits so flagrantly and so often. He treated public roads like his personal drag strip, heedless of the danger he posed to himself and others.
So, his sentence was not just for the reckless driving he engaged in which killed Jessica and Lillia, but for his history of reckless driving.
Do you really think he’s innocent because he is attractive? Ted Bundy was also attractive. So was Andrew Cunanan. So was Richard Ramirez. So was Charles Schmid. So was Paul John Knowles. So was Glen Rogers.
All were regarded as handsome men. They’re also serial killers.