Serial killers, psychopaths etc

[Davetello]

What are your views on these people? I have to admit that I have a fascination with serial killers, both in fact and fiction (which sometimes overlap). The psychology behind it intrigues me.

I find it amazing that people have absolutely no feelings whatsoever for other humans, and that empathy, compassion and love are completely absent. I also find it fascinating that they're able to evade detection thanks to their high intellects, expert lying, and deceptive natures.

My favourite serial killer (poor way to phrase it, admittedly) is probably Dennis Rader. I read a lot of his story in 2009 and have kept up to speed with him ever since.

[BubblyShell22]

I'm honestly not fascinated with them and feel they are horrible people. It just reinforces how horrible the world is and how horrible people are to each other that they would kill innocent people for their own enjoyment.

[snake]

Hate 'em. I find them interesting, but I'd never consider someone like Dahmer to be my hero.

[Davetello]

I'm honestly not fascinated with them and feel they are horrible people. It just reinforces how horrible the world is and how horrible people are to each other that they would kill innocent people for their own enjoyment.

Yes, of course. My fascination (as I say to snake) is simply on a psychological and criminal level. Obviously they're vile people.

Hate 'em. I find them interesting, but I'd never consider someone like Dahmer to be my hero.

That's what I mean. They're fascinating in the sense that you wonder why they're so devoid of emotion. Obviously there are psychological reasons for that, but it's pretty interesting.

Obviously I hate them too. They're scum.

[Darthknuxward]

Hate 'em. I find them interesting, but I'd never consider someone like Dahmer to be my hero.

Same here.

[CyberCubed]

This topic is kinda creepy, Dave.

[DarkLightDragon]

I did admittedly go through a phase back in high school where I was intrigued by what goes on in these people's minds and why they commit atrocities but I never condoned or worshipped them over it.

Some people are just sick in the head and lack the conscience/empathy to not harm others. That's all there is. And no amount of history of being abused as a child or some other kind of 'oh woe is me' story will ever justify their actions for me.

[MrPliggins]

I am very interested in psychology and what makes people tick. I think it's interesting to see documentaries on them to try to understand the whole thought process behind it. But I don't think any of them should be named in media and become "celebrities" so to speak. That is what some of them are after, notoriety. However, the media will never let this info be withheld.

[Prowler]

Can't say I've ever been interested in them. I know a couple of people who like reading biographies and watching documentaries about them, but I never saw the fascination about it, even though I'm interested in the human psyche.

I do like reading about dictators though. From Hitler, to Stalin, etc. I guess that's not very different since they're mass murders.

[pennydreadful]

I'm also fascinated by them. Do I think they're heroes? No. Do I feel terrible for their victims and their families? Yes. But that doesn't stop me being interested in the whole thing: the psychology of the perpetrators, the forensics and investigations and the court cases, the whole shebang.

Plenty of people are interested in true crime - there are countless books devoted to it, as well as true-crime tv series and documentaries. It's understandable that some people find the subject repellent - it's also understandable that other people are curious about the dark side of human nature, as well as death.

Hey Dave, have you ever read any of the books/watched any of the docos on Richard Kuklinski? If not, you'd probably enjoy them.

[FoxBoxKid]

I recently started reading Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, and the second volume has an intriguing story involving a serial killer convention. Really deep stuff there.

I'm honestly not fascinated with them and feel they are horrible people. It just reinforces how horrible the world is and how horrible people are to each other that they would kill innocent people for their own enjoyment.

I don't think they do it for enjoyment, usually. Sometimes, they have, like, OCD, but instead having to turn the light on and off ten times, they have to kill. Or other times, they're so delusional they think they're doing a good thing by sending people to the next world, or whatever. And sometimes, they might just do it to see how it feels to kill someone. What if someone who read that had a compulsion to kill, and felt like they were subhuman. Instead of judging, we should preach acceptance and equality.

[snake]

I recently started reading Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, and the second volume has an intriguing story involving a serial killer convention. Really deep stuff there.



I don't think they do it for enjoyment, usually. Sometimes, they have, like, OCD, but instead having to turn the light on and off ten times, they have to kill. Or other times, they're so delusional they think they're doing a good thing by sending people to the next world, or whatever. And sometimes, they might just do it to see how it feels to kill someone. What if someone who read that had a compulsion to kill, and felt like they were subhuman. Instead of judging, we should preach acceptance and equality.

Are you a serial killer by chance? :P

[FoxBoxKid]

Are you a serial killer by chance? :P

Of course not, I'm a proud warrior in the fight for social justice. :lol:

[Leo656]

It's funny, I do have casual fascination with serial killers, since you asked. Mostly in the sense, that, anyone could just kill another person in a crime of passion - fight gets out of hand, you catch your wife in bed with someone else, some guys doing 30 in a 50mph zone - there are plenty of understandable situations where a person could conceivably kill someone.

Whereas, serial killers usually have a theme, a specific pattern, and overall put so much thought and effort into everything they do; everything is planned, there's nothing accidental about it, it's all very deliberate. It's no surprise that it's surmised that most serial killers have a higher IQ and intelligence than most "normal" people. Further proof is in how few of the more prominent ones were ever caught.

I've done a fair bit of reading off and on about Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac Killer. Part of what's so fascinating is how many conflicting theories and leads there are; not only were they never caught, but people whose main job was finding out who they were and stopping them never even came close, and the only "leads" they had were spoon-fed to them by the killers themselves. It's amazing to me how there really NEVER has been anything close to resembling "law enforcement"; no matter the time or place, all "officers of the law" have ever been able to do is break up bar fights and write citations. They never catch any criminals, especially the most dangerous ones, ones they assign task forces and such to finding. It's hilarious in a way.

On the whole I think I'm most fascinated with the Zodiac. Just the entire presentation and his overall "gimmick", the guy was such a Batman villain. Obviously his crimes were horrific but you have to give him an A for "presentation", if even some of those letters to the police and papers were really written by him.

Incidentally, I found it really tough to argue with Kevin Spacey's character in "Se7en". Like, he was a monster, but in listening to him present his arguments, there's a real logic and intelligence to what drives him. That's the scariest thing; it's not like these guys are often "crazy" in the sense they're baying at the moon and drooling on themselves. They're just usually super-intelligent people who went "nuts" because they have a disconnect in their brains as far as how unfair things are and how imbalanced the world sometimes is. Some people just go, "Huh, I guess it really IS all pointless, life as we know it really DOES have no meaning", and then they lose it. And that's less "insane" then it is "seriously imbalanced and disturbed", which, to me, is WAY more dangerous than simple "crazy".

I don't think there's anything wrong with a person being fascinated with people like this, though; I mean, part of why many of them never get caught is because it's tough for anyone else to understand them, so they're unpredictable. We spent a brief period in Criminal Justice class studying, in particular, some of the most famous killers and criminals in modern history and discussing what makes them so "popular". A lot of times it's the sheer incredulity of, "Holy sh*t, someone actually did this, and beyond that, got away with it." It's just so "WTF" and it really makes you think.

[CyberCubed]

The only serial killer I can support is The Joker. The man is a genius. You think he's just some goofy clown who throws playing cards or jumps around giggling, but The Joker is one of the most intelligent villains in the Batman universe.

The crimes and schemes he comes up with are so well planned and thought out its mind blowing. Where does he get the money and henchmen to pull off such a thing?

[FoxBoxKid]

The only serial killer I can support is The Joker. The man is a genius. You think he's just some goofy clown who throws playing cards or jumps around giggling, but The Joker is one of the most intelligent villains in the Batman universe.

The crimes and schemes he comes up with are so well planned and thought out its mind blowing. Where does he get the money and henchmen to pull off such a thing?

That's not cool, man. Joker shot and paralyzed my waifu. In all seriousness, my real DC waifu is Raven.

[Jephael]

Ever see Serial Mom where Kathleen Turner goes around killing people who wrong her kids? Oh man, I'd hate to be on that family's bad side!

[Prowler]

What I find it odd is how people are usually quick to point the weirdest person in the room to be a future murderer or rapist, and then when you watch journalists on tv interviewing the neighbors and friends of a murderer or a rapist all of them say "I never expected this. He was such a nice guy. A great father and husband who got along with everyone!"

[snake]

That's not cool, man. Joker shot and paralyzed my waifu. In all seriousness, my real DC waifu is Raven.

http://www.absoluteanime.com/teen_titans/starfire.jpg

Get on my level.

[FoxBoxKid]

What I find it odd is how people are usually quick to point the weirdest person in the room to be a future murderer or rapist, and then when you watch journalists on tv interviewing the neighbors and friends of a murderer or a rapist all of them say "I never expected this. He was such a nice guy. A great father and husband who got along with everyone!"

Yeah, sociopaths are good at faking emotion.

[pennydreadful]

What I find it odd is how people are usually quick to point the weirdest person in the room to be a future murderer or rapist, and then when you watch journalists on tv interviewing the neighbors and friends of a murderer or a rapist all of them say "I never expected this. He was such a nice guy. A great father and husband who got along with everyone!"

Yeah, sociopaths are good at faking emotion.

This - people like Bundy and Gacy were well-thought of by their peers and community because sociopaths are known for having a great deal of charm (albeit at a glib, superficial level).

On the other hand, you've got Dahmer, who was not particularly socially functional and was very quiet and withdrawn.

What's fascinating about serial killers is that there are so many different sub-categories. Some of them are highly organized - like Gacy or Ivan Milat; they're methodical in planning out their hunt, choosing a victim, the body disposal etc. Then you've got the disorganized serial killers like Richard Ramirez or Ottis Toole, where there's minimal planning, victims are chosen at random and there's little effort made to cover up the crime. Disorganized serial killers tend to differ significantly from organized serial killers in that they have lower IQs and are obviously antisocial (for example, poor hygiene and scruffy appearance, unemployed, minimal effort made to fake normal human emotions etc).

Both disorganized and disorganized types are antisocial and psychopathic, but the psychology and behaviors displayed by the two generally have significant differences.

Not only that but then you have the additional sub-categories where there's further ground for psychological exploration; you've got your necrophiles, 'angel of death'/medical killer types, sexual sadist/torture-murderers, cannibalistic murderers, black widows...

There's this myth that serial killers are all these reclusive, dysfunctional losers, and generally, they aren't - they look just like us, they hide among us. In a way, they're the ultimate bogeyman because they're the real thing.

[Prowler]

I've always assumed that most serial killers consider their actions nothing more than a mere game. And the higher their kill count gets, the more clues they'll leave so that the cops eventually identify them and their name becomes known worldwide. I guess it's just another form of humans striving for fame/infamy and wanting to leave their mark in the world.

[slashpieturtlemix]

I look at this in two contexts. It is sickening for real life serial killers but entertaining to see them in media. It is probably because we all like the thrill of seeing one on tv but we are horrified by them in real life. Most serial killers have known chemical imbalances. We all feel pity for people who are the victims and our society is designed to discourage such people. Luckily for all of us, technology has gotten to the point where they have an extremely slim chance of getting away with the crime.

[pennydreadful]

Luckily for all of us, technology has gotten to the point where they have an extremely slim chance of getting away with the crime.

Not necessarily. Like everything else, it comes down to a variety of factors: witnesses, police work, forensic or DNA evidence which would lead back to the killer, and also who they choose as their victim/s.

The cops are no closer to catching the Long Island serial killer, and he's been at it for years. He's been successful in eluding detection because 1: location, location, location - the place where he's dumping the bodies is extremely isolated and basically deserted for at least five months out of the year; and 2: all of his victims have been sex workers - people who often don't have others to miss them and are not always seen as high-priority members of society.

Then there's also the fact that a lot of the time, police just bungle things - they don't follow up leads where they should have, and so the killers are free to keep doing what they do. Perfect example is (details under spoiler so I don't upset anyone who'd rather not read specific details of crimes):

when Dahmer was actually caught with one of his victims in 1991; the youth had escaped from Dahmer and was running naked down the street. Dahmer told them that they were a couple and had just had a quarrel; the cops wrote it off as a domestic dispute, ignored the concerns of several onlookers who pointed out that the victim was bleeding, and they took the kid back to Dahmer's place. Later on, it resulted in some very bad publicity for the police department as they were on-record as having joked about having had to deal with a 'gay domestic dispute' (one of them said that his partner had to go back to the station to get deloused). If they'd run Dahmer's ID it would have showed that he had criminal convictions and was in fact on probation for a previous sexual offense. Not to mention the fact that they made no effort to verify the victim's age or identity at the time, let alone communicate with him. Instead, Dahmer remained free and went on to kill another four people.

Point being, successfully apprehending a serial killer relies on the killer slipping up. Sometimes they do... but sometimes they don't.

They never caught The Black Doodler, who committed a string of gay killings back in the 70's; in fact, there's very little information on his crimes out there at all. The Oakland County Killer, Bible John, the Seven Bridges Killer, the Freeway Phantom, the West Mesa Bone Collector, the Original Nightstalker, the Eastbound Strangler, the Alphabet Murderer, the Daytona Beach Killer, the Stoneman, the Lisbon Ripper, the Frankford Slasher, the New Bedford Highway Killer... even infamous murderers like the Black Dahlia killer sometimes never get caught.

Then there's the Smiley Face Killer, where people can't even decide if it's a real person or just an urban legend.

[slashpieturtlemix]

Not necessarily. Like everything else, it comes down to a variety of factors: witnesses, police work, forensic or DNA evidence which would lead back to the killer, and also who they choose as their victim/s.

The cops are no closer to catching the Long Island serial killer, and he's been at it for years. He's been successful in eluding detection because 1: location, location, location - the place where he's dumping the bodies is extremely isolated and basically deserted for at least five months out of the year; and 2: all of his victims have been sex workers - people who often don't have others to miss them and are not always seen as high-priority members of society.

Then there's also the fact that a lot of the time, police just bungle things - they don't follow up leads where they should have, and so the killers are free to keep doing what they do. Perfect example is (details under spoiler so I don't upset anyone who'd rather not read specific details of crimes):

when Dahmer was actually caught with one of his victims in 1991; the youth had escaped from Dahmer and was running naked down the street. Dahmer told them that they were a couple and had just had a quarrel; the cops wrote it off as a domestic dispute, ignored the concerns of several onlookers who pointed out that the victim was bleeding, and they took the kid back to Dahmer's place. Later on, it resulted in some very bad publicity for the police department as they were on-record as having joked about having had to deal with a 'gay domestic dispute' (one of them said that his partner had to go back to the station to get deloused). If they'd run Dahmer's ID it would have showed that he had criminal convictions and was in fact on probation for a previous sexual offense. Not to mention the fact that they made no effort to verify the victim's age or identity at the time, let alone communicate with him. Instead, Dahmer remained free and went on to kill another four people.

Point being, successfully apprehending a serial killer relies on the killer slipping up. Sometimes they do... but sometimes they don't.

They never caught The Black Doodler, who committed a string of gay killings back in the 70's; in fact, there's very little information on his crimes out there at all. The Oakland County Killer, Bible John, the Seven Bridges Killer, the Freeway Phantom, the West Mesa Bone Collector, the Original Nightstalker, the Eastbound Strangler, the Alphabet Murderer, the Daytona Beach Killer, the Stoneman, the Lisbon Ripper, the Frankford Slasher, the New Bedford Highway Killer... even infamous murderers like the Black Dahlia killer sometimes never get caught.

Then there's the Smiley Face Killer, where people can't even decide if it's a real person or just an urban legend.

I am very suspicious of you at this moment :P also I understand the few that occasionally get away but the thought of the technology alone scares away a ton of people who would be serial killers. The 60s-70s had a ridiculous amount of serial killers compared to today. The number has gone down because more and more people are getting caught before they hit the 5th person. The average I have seen is usually three. There will always be people who can outsmart the system because it usually takes an increased intellect to even want to murder someone with no motive.

[pennydreadful]

LOL... I'll confess, my interest in the subject is keen and probably ghoulish (bordering on the macabre) - you've got me there. But hey, everyone here knows I'm a freak - why start letting the team down now? :lol:

You do make solid point - figures show that the number of serial killers is definitely on the decline.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3118327/40.png

It'd be interesting to examine the sociological factors as to why the rate of serial murders has decreased - as you've said, there's a higher rate of apprehension. I also wonder whether the fact that people are more wary, less likely to trust strangers, pick up hitchhikers, leave their doors unlocked etc makes it more difficult; access to victims isn't quite as easy as it was back in the 80's. There's also the fact that there's an incredible amount of sites with graphic death-related content and violent pornography available - perhaps this is a partial outlet for people with these sorts of tendencies; then again, perhaps not.

Police are better at keeping records of missing persons, so there appears to be a higher rate of people going missing even though in reality it's just better bookkeeping.

That being said, the awareness of the rise in technology works both ways. For the serial killer who doesn't seek notoriety, who prefers to operate in secret - there is an awareness that body disposal has to be a priority. If you want to avoid detection, the best way to go about it is to make sure there was never any evidence that there was a murder to start with. A serial killer in this day and age may well choose to operate this way - a smart psychopath knows that the best way to avoid detection is to not leave any evidence which would kick off an investigation to start with.

On the other hand, there's also the undeniable fact that these days, serial killers simply aren't the media sensation that they were in the 80's - while there's a draw for the psychopath in terms of wanting to prove that they're cleverer than the police, that they can outsmart them, the media don't clamor about serial killers or unsolved murders the way they used to. These days, Joe Public is more afraid of mass shootings and terrorists than of the Bundys of the world. It could also be a deliberate effort on the part of police to keep serial killers out of the news, given that they have historically enjoyed the attention.

I'm also left wondering whether in 20 years, the numbers will spike again. Because on the other hand, the general population the US has increased exponentially from what it was at 100 years ago. This means two things: one, more potential victims, as there are always going to be disenfranchised and vulnerable people in any society, and two: more potential violent psychopaths per capita.

It would also be interesting to examine whether the decline has been a worldwide trend, as there is still an enormous rate of unsolved murders in countries outside the US/UK. For obvious reasons, like police corruption, lack of proper internal procedures, a faulty justice system, there are countries where unsolved murder is much easier to get away with.

Here's the part where I bring up yet another documentary... :P Seriously though, there is a good one called Killer's Paradise - it was done in 2007 and it examines the high rate of unsolved murders of women, and it examines some of issues with the legal system, the government and the police department which allow that kind of thing to flourish. Linkage here for any who are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer%27s_Paradise

[snake]

I can't really tell, but I think you like serial killers, Penny. :lol:

[pennydreadful]

LOL and here I thought I was being subtle. :P j/k

[Davetello]

Thanks for all the posts.

Cyber Cubed - it's not really a creepy topic. This subject pops up on quite a lot of websites, it's not an uncommon thing to discuss. And I think this is the first time I've seen you refer to someone by name. I'm flattered :lol:

[Davetello]

Incidentally, I found it really tough to argue with Kevin Spacey's character in "Se7en". Like, he was a monster, but in listening to him present his arguments, there's a real logic and intelligence to what drives him. That's the scariest thing; it's not like these guys are often "crazy" in the sense they're baying at the moon and drooling on themselves. They're just usually super-intelligent people who went "nuts" because they have a disconnect in their brains as far as how unfair things are and how imbalanced the world sometimes is. Some people just go, "Huh, I guess it really IS all pointless, life as we know it really DOES have no meaning", and then they lose it. And that's less "insane" then it is "seriously imbalanced and disturbed", which, to me, is WAY more dangerous than simple "crazy".



The rest of your post was great, and summed up my feelings, but I wanted to talk about this part.

Some of them do indeed kill indiscriminately, but as you say, some are driven by their view of the world and some sort of 'moral compass'. I too could see Spacey's logic, even as a 12 year old. I also completely understand what the Joker was doing in the Dark Knight. His plan failed with the ships, but he was trying to illuminate the hypocrisy that people display on a day to day basis.

That's all a little different from your regular serial killer, many of whom are simply sociopaths who have an urge to kill, generally a sexual urge (the above were sociopaths, but they had a reason for what they were doing). But, while I would never murder someone, there are people in this world whom I think don't deserve to live, and I can understand why someone would want to snuff them out. Those sort of killers are more like moral crusaders, though.

[Hannurdock]

I like Dexter, but he killed other murderers mainly.

I don't like serial killers, I find them frightening ... but there is a fascination with something so inhuman.

[BubblyShell22]

I have always been fascinated by murder cases, and followed the Jodi Arias case nonstop. She's not a serial killer, but I believe she had the potential to be one had she not been convicted of Travis Alexander's death.

And, Dave, I feel you about certain people who don't deserve to live on this Earth. I feel that way sometimes, too.

[pennydreadful]

I think Hollywood tends to choose the 'crusader' types like Dexter and John Doe for their shows and movies as it's easier to romanticize them.

I know Dexter was meant to be a drama series with very dark humor, but I could never get into it - I always sat there thinking about how sloppy he was. You know, the "Dude, if I were killing people, I'd never make those mistakes!" kind of thing. :lol: Though I can't talk about anything past the first two seasons with any authority as that was as far as I watched. The amount of raw materials that the man had to purchase and dispose of on a regular basis was a huge weakness in his method, not to mention the time for the set-up and breakdown of his murder scenes. All it'd take is one homeless dude or some teens wanting to get their buzz on in one of his little abandoned warehouses or something and it'd be all over.

John Doe was relatable in that he looked at the world around him and was repulsed by it - and that's something that most people can connect with on some sort of level, even if you didn't agree with his individual victim choices.

[slashpieturtlemix]

I think Hollywood tends to choose the 'crusader' types like Dexter and John Doe for their shows and movies as it's easier to romanticize them.

I know Dexter was meant to be a drama series with very dark humor, but I could never get into it - I always sat there thinking about how sloppy he was. You know, the "Dude, if I were killing people, I'd never make those mistakes!" kind of thing. :lol: Though I can't talk about anything past the first two seasons with any authority as that was as far as I watched. The amount of raw materials that the man had to purchase and dispose of on a regular basis was a huge weakness in his method, not to mention the time for the set-up and breakdown of his murder scenes. All it'd take is one homeless dude or some teens wanting to get their buzz on in one of his little abandoned warehouses or something and it'd be all over.

John Doe was relatable in that he looked at the world around him and was repulsed by it - and that's something that most people can connect with on some sort of level, even if you didn't agree with his individual victim choices.

We need a serial killer show where the killer acts like Sherlock from the BBC series lol that would be amazing

[FoxBoxKid]

To anyone who likes serial killer/sociopath stories, I gotta recommend Death Note.

[slashpieturtlemix]

To anyone who likes serial killer/sociopath stories, I gotta recommend Death Note.

Yeah Deathnote was pretty amazing. Kinda bummed about the ending but they had to end it some time. I think my favorite serial killer is actually Desty Nova from Battle Angel. True class with him!

[pennydreadful]

Right on, FoxBox - Death Note was awesome. :D

I keep hearing people raving about Hannibal but I haven't felt motivated to finish watching Season 1. I think I have a bit of a hard time getting drawn into fictional serial killers as for me, they can't compare to the real thing in terms of being creepy or scary, and rarely explore the mental landscape of the psychopath to my satisfaction.

[Davetello]

To anyone who likes serial killer/sociopath stories, I gotta recommend Death Note.



Seen Death Note twice, excellent. Light is very deluded though - he becomes so obsessed with power that he begins to think he's the ruler of the planet. Great show though.

Personally, I prefer Johan Liebert to Light (the serial killer and prime antagonist of Monster). He's just far more calculating and cold than Light. Light is arguably not a sociopath; we see him experience a range of emotions and you get the feeling that he's simply been corrupted by his lust for absolute power and the fact that the note grants him that. But Johan is just a cold-blooder killer. His environment probably screwed him up, but he seems to kill his victims without showing any empathy or compassion. And, unlike Light, he doesn't start out killing criminals. He begins with innocents.

I keep hearing people raving about Hannibal but I haven't felt motivated to finish watching Season 1. I think I have a bit of a hard time getting drawn into fictional serial killers as for me, they can't compare to the real thing in terms of being creepy or scary, and rarely explore the mental landscape of the psychopath to my satisfaction.

Binged Hannibal earlier on this year. Really, really good show. It's surprising that a non-cable show can be of such high quality. The second season is certainly a step up from the first.

I see Dexter is mentioned above. Clearly it's unrealistic but that doesn't detract from the entertainment value, for me. I've seen all 8 seasons, and also rewatched the first four (because it jumps the shark in season 5). Season 4 with Trinity is some of the finest television ever.

[Redeemer]

What are your views on these people? I have to admit that I have a fascination with serial killers, both in fact and fiction (which sometimes overlap). The psychology behind it intrigues me.

I find it amazing that people have absolutely no feelings whatsoever for other humans, and that empathy, compassion and love are completely absent. I also find it fascinating that they're able to evade detection thanks to their high intellects, expert lying, and deceptive natures.

My favourite serial killer (poor way to phrase it, admittedly) is probably Dennis Rader. I read a lot of his story in 2009 and have kept up to speed with him ever since.
Serial Killers are not always the smartest people. One reason they remain elusive is the fact that they cross jurisdictions and police do not share information with one another.
Serial Killers are interesting, but its scary to know some have fully adopted the triad of Sociopathy. Or that there people like Bundy who have developed such a high level of social skills they actually use it as a tool in their killing method.

This topic is kinda creepy, Dave.
Its depressing me more than anything.

[Davetello]

Serial Killers are not always the smartest people. One reason they remain elusive is the fact that they cross jurisdictions and police do not share information with one another.
Serial Killers are interesting, but its scary to know some have fully adopted the triad of Sociopathy. Or that there people like Bundy who have developed such a high level of social skills they actually use it as a tool in their killing method.


Its depressing me more than anything.

Yeah, I know it's often a stereotype that they're all incredibly smart. Although I was reading again earlier and it's apparently a myth that they cross state lines, as you claim. I guess every case is different and peculiar in its own way.

Yeah, the McDonald triad. I was going to mention it in my OP but was trying to keep it succinct. For anyone who is unaware, the three signs in childhood of a potential future serial killer are arson, torturing and killing animals, and bedwetting.

[pennydreadful]

When we say 'crossing state lines' though, is that in the sense of crossing the lines to murder in another state, or crossing lines for the purpose of body disposal or evading capture?

I'm not sure about how common it is for serial killers doing the former, but I'm sure I've read about them doing the last two quite frequently. Generally, that's when the FBI get called in.

There have been some instances where I recall specific serial killers with victims in multiple states; Larry W Eyler for one.

They do tend to start out in areas where they're familiar with the geography though.

Interestingly enough, on the subject of serial killers and geography, there were three (totally independent from one another) serial killers operating in the late 70's - early 80's in California, (more details under the spoiler as I don't want to bother anyone who'd rather not know):

who were all dumping their victims' bodies by the California Freeway. The police actually thought that it was all the work of one killer as, despite the homicide methods varying, the victims were all young males. For all three serial killers, the majority of their murders were all committed in California, and none of the serial killers knew one another. Given that serial killers are meant to be a tiny, tiny fraction of the population, I think it's very interesting that three serial killers could be operating in one area during the same time. One of those "the truth is much more frightening than any kind of fiction" sort of things, I suppose.

(For anyone who wanted to do more reading on this, the serial killers I'm referring to here are Patrick Kearney, Randy Kraft and William Bonin).

[Davetello]

When we say 'crossing state lines' though, is that in the sense of crossing the lines to murder in another state, or crossing lines for the purpose of body disposal or evading capture?

I'm not sure about how common it is for serial killers doing the former, but I'm sure I've read about them doing the last two quite frequently. Generally, that's when the FBI get called in.

There have been some instances where I recall specific serial killers with victims in multiple states; Larry W Eyler for one.

They do tend to start out in areas where they're familiar with the geography though.

Interestingly enough, on the subject of serial killers and geography, there were three (totally independent from one another) serial killers operating in the late 70's - early 80's in California, (more details under the spoiler as I don't want to bother anyone who'd rather not know):

who were all dumping their victims' bodies by the California Freeway. The police actually thought that it was all the work of one killer as, despite the homicide methods varying, the victims were all young males. For all three serial killers, the majority of their murders were all committed in California, and none of the serial killers knew one another. Given that serial killers are meant to be a tiny, tiny fraction of the population, I think it's very interesting that three serial killers could be operating in one area during the same time. One of those "the truth is much more frightening than any kind of fiction" sort of things, I suppose.

(For anyone who wanted to do more reading on this, the serial killers I'm referring to here are Patrick Kearney, Randy Kraft and William Bonin).


I meant it's rare for them to live in different states and murder all over the place. But yes, they often cross state lines to dispose of victims' bodies etc. This is pretty common especially in the Pacific Northwest due to the environment and climate factors there. It's a haven for serial killers.

[TheCanadiandrome]

What are your views on these people? I have to

http://imagehost.epier.com/7751/Killemall.JPG

[Refractive Reflections]

I don't know if anybody heard about this, but there was neuroscientist James Fallon who was attempting to find patterns for psychopathic behavior in brain scans, and found his own brain fit the profile:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512640/Meet-neuroscientist-married-father-discovered-PSYCHOPATH-accidentally-studying-brain-scans.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist

In addition he discovered that he had high-risk genes for aggression, violence and low empathy:


“I’ve never killed anybody, or raped anyone,” he says. “So the first thing I thought was that maybe my hypothesis was wrong, and that these brain areas are not reflective of psychopathy or murderous behavior.”

But when he underwent a series of genetic tests, he got more bad news. “I had all these high-risk alleles for aggression, violence and low empathy,” he says, such as a variant of the MAO-A gene that has been linked with aggressive behavior. Eventually, based on further neurological and behavioral research into psychopathy, he decided he was indeed a psychopath—just a relatively good kind, what he and others call a “pro-social psychopath,” someone who has difficulty feeling true empathy for others but still keeps his behavior roughly within socially-acceptable bounds.


Of course this approach may be an oversimplification of diagnosing who are psychopaths, but it certainly reveals the importance of the nurturing/environmental aspect of the "nature vs. nurture" debate of how people develop during childhood, especially psychologically in regards to this topic.

As for views on these people...?
Dr. Robert Hare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare) (a notable researcher in the field of criminal psychology) describes them (the more appropriate term is "Antisocial Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder)") best here, "social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and empathy, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret"

[Davetello]

I don't know if anybody heard about this, but there was neuroscientist James Fallon who was attempting to find patterns for psychopathic behavior in brain scans, and found his own brain fit the profile:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512640/Meet-neuroscientist-married-father-discovered-PSYCHOPATH-accidentally-studying-brain-scans.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist

In addition he discovered that he had high-risk genes for aggression, violence and low empathy:



Of course this approach may be an oversimplification of diagnosing who are psychopaths, but it certainly reveals the importance of the nurturing/environmental aspect of the "nature vs. nurture" debate of how people develop during childhood, especially psychologically in regards to this topic.

As for views on these people...?
Dr. Robert Hare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare) (a notable researcher in the field of criminal psychology) describes them (the more appropriate term is "Antisocial Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder)") best here, "social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and empathy, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret"

All of that is very interesting. The fact that he was concerned to find out the truth probably shows that he's a better kind of psychopath, as stated.

The antisocial personality behaviour is well documented. These people feel nothing and are very good at faking traditional human emotions. It allows them to wear a mask of sanity and go through live without ever being detected. They're also extremely meticulous and organised, due to their thought processes.

[BubblyShell22]

I don't know if anybody heard about this, but there was neuroscientist James Fallon who was attempting to find patterns for psychopathic behavior in brain scans, and found his own brain fit the profile:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512640/Meet-neuroscientist-married-father-discovered-PSYCHOPATH-accidentally-studying-brain-scans.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist

In addition he discovered that he had high-risk genes for aggression, violence and low empathy:



Of course this approach may be an oversimplification of diagnosing who are psychopaths, but it certainly reveals the importance of the nurturing/environmental aspect of the "nature vs. nurture" debate of how people develop during childhood, especially psychologically in regards to this topic.

As for views on these people...?
Dr. Robert Hare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hare) (a notable researcher in the field of criminal psychology) describes them (the more appropriate term is "Antisocial Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder)") best here, "social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and empathy, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret"

Wow. Very interesting to hear. That last bit sounds a lot like my sister. She's totally like that.

[Refractive Reflections]

I forgot to mention this one piece of information in the articles that led me to emphasize the nurturing aspect in regards to the topic:


Fallon believes that thanks in large part to his upbringing and support from his extended family, he has been able to channel and damp down his innate psychopathic leanings. ‘I’m obnoxiously competitive. I won’t let my grandchildren win games. I’m kind of an a**hole, and I do jerky things that piss people off,’ he admitted. ‘But while I’m aggressive, my aggression is sublimated. I’d rather beat someone in an argument than beat them up.’

According to Fallon's theory, his ability not to act on his psychopathy is rooted in the unconditional love that his parents had given him.

The 58-year-old explained that his mother had had several miscarriages before finally welcoming him into the world, so to his parents he was a golden boy who was dotted upon. ‘I had a charmed childhood; I was never abused. No one's done anything bad enough to turn me into a killer,’ he said. ‘It shows that your genes are not a jail sentence.’ Around the time puberty hit, Fallon's parents noticed that the boy was starting to show some unsettling traits, and so the family rallied around him, he told NPR, steering the troubled adolescent away from a perilous path that potentially could have led him to an early grave or a prison cell.

In the wake of the stunting revelation about his genetic makeup, Fallon has been consciously altering his behavior and making efforts to think about other people's feelings - something that does not come naturally to him.

[BubblyShell22]

Wow. That's pretty awesome that he had parents who rallied around him. It definitely helped him and shows that parents really are important when they care about someone.

[Amaranthus]

Do you guys like Huey Lewis & the News?
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/714/doublesguy.jpg

[BubblyShell22]

Actually, I've always liked their songs. Does that mean I have the tendency to be a serial killer?

[pennydreadful]

Do you guys like Huey Lewis & the News?

I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip to be Square", a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself. :D:D:D

[Leo656]

Speeeeeeeeectacular. :lol:

[MsMarvelDuckie]

To anyone who likes serial killer/sociopath stories, I gotta recommend Death Note.


Agreed! Loved all three versions- manga, anime, and LA movie(s).


Yeah Deathnote was pretty amazing. Kinda bummed about the ending but they had to end it some time. I think my favorite serial killer is actually Desty Nova from Battle Angel. True class with him!


If the ending of the anime bummed you out, you should try watching the LA movie version- not only was it VERY well done (and the CG was excellent) but it had a neat twist the manga/anime versions didn't!


Right on, FoxBox - Death Note was awesome. :D



Yup. It's one of my favorite anime, at least for the first two seasons. Not sure how much further it went after that. Preferred the LA version, though.

[FoxBoxKid]

Started watching Hannibal a couple of days ago. The show's brimming with psychopaths and serial killers.

[Hannurdock]

Seen Hannibal. It was very gory. Liked the series though, just tuned out all the brain matter and cannibalism.

[FoxBoxKid]

While watching Hannibal, I realized I really want a video game where you play as a serial killer.You'd be able to customize your character including their M.O. Basically, an actual murder simulator. And you'd get a higher score the less evidence you leave. Thoughts?

[Davetello]

Yeah, Hannibal is really good for a network show.

FoxBox - yeah, I've wanted to play a game where we take control of a serial killer, too. It would be fairly disturbing but disturbing media is quite common nowadays anyway. I read a debate on this once, but opinions were mixed. Some people were horrified at the thought of playing as a serial killer. It might have been in relation to a potential Dexter game, but that character is a killer of killers, so it's not like murdering innocent people.

That new game where you take control of a spree killer might be the closest thing to taking control of a serial killer, although they're obviously defined very differently. Ultimately, though, you're a guy killing innocent people.

[Zulithe]

i've watched plenty of documentaries and read a lot of material about them. I'm interested in learning about and hopefully understanding, to some degree, what some people are capable of and what lead them to do it in the first place.

Few weeks ago I saw a film about a child that went missing in the 70s and they never got to the bottom of it despite having some strong suspects. It was titled "Have You Seen Andy?" That's one I would recommend, if you can find a copy. It's somewhat rare.

The disappearance of Etan Patz is another case that really irritates me, if you look into it you'll probably understand why. Several people over the years have confessed to being involved and it's all turned up to be ********. I think that's another element that draws people to them sometimes, there is an inherent mystery to it and not a manufactured one that has a pre-planned solution like in a novel.

I don't think there's anything strange about it being interested in these subjects, it's better that we acknowledge the messed up things that happen in our world than to just ignore it IMO.

[Davetello]

i've watched plenty of documentaries and read a lot of material about them. I'm interested in learning about and hopefully understanding, to some degree, what some people are capable of and what lead them to do it in the first place.

Few weeks ago I saw a film about a child that went missing in the 70s and they never got to the bottom of it despite having some strong suspects. It was titled "Have You Seen Andy?" That's one I would recommend, if you can find a copy. It's somewhat rare.

The disappearance of Etan Patz is another case that really irritates me, if you look into it you'll probably understand why. Several people over the years have confessed to being involved and it's all turned up to be ********. I think that's another element that draws people to them sometimes, there is an inherent mystery to it and not a manufactured one that has a pre-planned solution like in a novel.

I don't think there's anything strange about it being interested in these subjects, it's better that we acknowledge the messed up things that happen in our world than to just ignore it IMO.

Yes man, I agree. We need to develop a better understanding of these people for practical purposes (finding them) as well as psychological (to better understand the human condition and how the brain works).

[CaliperCat]

I find myself being drawn to studying serial killers for purposes of psychology as well, in particular how nature and nature seem to affect their behavior. It's fascinating how some serial killers grow up in perfectly normal, loving families, while some have truly depressing/horrifying childhoods. It seems to me that those who experienced some form of abuse as children tend to be the ones who justify their actions with anger or hatred for their chosen target segment. The ones with more nondescript childhoods seem to kill for sexual/personal pleasure/curiosity than any anger towards a particular demographic.

[pennydreadful]

So what's everyone's preferred method for learning about serial killers? Do you prefer docos, online articles or true crime novels - or a combo of both?

I tend to zero in on a particular serial killer case that I'm interested in and then watch/read everything I can find about the case, before moving onto another one.