As a psychologist, I study suicide and motive for suicide.  Plenty of the case studies and patients I have interviewed are victims of rape.  I am not suggesting that you read the case studies because they are EXTREMELY heavy and depressing.  I do it because I want to help people live but even with my training, I sometimes end up in month long bouts of depression reading and talking to the people who have gone through things like this.  Plenty of rape babies are treated HORRIBLY by their natural parents.  I have talked to patients whose natural mothers have blamed them for the rape, which is absolutely unfair.  But it happens. 

Amanda may have been able to create a loving bond with Freddy.  She also might not have.  We don't know for sure but there are no guarantees either way.

Actually it is.  Check out my profile to see that this is actually my profession.  My PhD is in cognitive psychology, which is the study of the brain and there is ample evidence that psychiatric disorders are genetic.  Predisposition to murder has been linked to a lack of activity in the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the center for impulse control.  More than anything nuture related, this has had a high positive correlation with serial killers.

What you are proposing is a completely nuture based development which really isn't very likely.  Generally, a person's psychological profile is going to be a combination of nature and nuture.  That is why I suggested that although he may not be the same murderer under a different nuturing environment, the environment alone does not act as a complete buffer against genetic predisposition.

As I explained before, there's still love, it's hard to show, but it's there.

Exactly, anything is possible. Freddy probably would've turned into a murderer. He probably wouldn't've.

This article here explains in short terms how varied it can be.  http://www.aaets.org/article213.htm 62 serial killers were profiled.  48% of them, less than half, were rejected or abused by their parents.  52% were not.  Then, equally, there are people who are abused and unloved and never become serial killers.  You think Freddy Krueger had a bad and unloving unbringing?  Read about David Pelzer.  http://www.popmatters.com/review/child-called-it/ Compared to Pelzer, Freddy Krueger had it easy.  But Pelzer didn't become a serial killer.  He, in fact, served his country during Desert Storm and received commendations from Presidents Reagn, Bush and Clinton.

So you see, it's an interplay of nature and nuture.  But to say that  psychiatric conditions are not passed on genetically is just not accurate.  

First off, you've committed the anecdotal fallacy.  You're assuming that just because something has happened in your personal life that it is not true everywhere else.

There is more than ample evidencce that psychiatric disorders are inherited genetically.  http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08/19/5-major-mental-illnesses-traced-to-same-genetic-variations/58642.html

The above article talks abouto a major genome study that shows a genetic predisposition for psychiatric disorders.  

And you missed my entire point.  I did not say that everyone who has a psychiatric disorder will pass it on to their children.  I said that there is proof of a genetic predisposition to psychiatric disorders.  This means that there is a genetic component that is inherited but that component can be influenced by environmental factors. Furthermore, you have both your mother and your father's genes, so while your father may have Asperger's, if you're mother doesn't and her genetic material in that area is dominant, it might be so weak in your that it will never develop.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And just to let you know, Aspergers is not longer a diagnosis.  It's now called Austism Spectrum Disorder.  It was changed for the DSM V because there are so many similarities between autism and aspergers that they are now considered different levels of the same condition.