crey twins tony tucker pat tate

Night Stalker is probably up there, if for the sheer brazenness and short time frame of his killings, plus the satanic connection.

He only ended a few people tho. Look at what Bundy, Kuklinski, and Ridgway did.

Ridgeways Green River runs right behind my apartment complex. If I understood what I read correctly, his first victim was found not a quarter mile from where I live.

One thing I've always found interesting about serial killers is they'll get busted for 1 murder or whatever and just casually mention under questioning that they killed 81 other people in the past few years. I think that happened with the Green River Killer. He was convicted of 48 murders but he's assumed to have killed over 90 people as if it's no biggie. Oh alright, she was a homeless hooker. Who cares, amirite?

I don't hear too much about serial killers. Today's killer has an automatic weapon and takes out as many people at once. I am sure law enforcement, especially with Internet, cameras, and social media, catches more people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If anything, the increased mobility of society has made it more likely we have active, undetected serial killers around. Law enforcement in general doesn't communicate with other agencies, so anyone willing to roam a bit, even with a fairly unique signature, could escape overall detection (meaning individual victims will be found, but no one figuring out the victims are all linked to a single killer) for quite a while. Plus, even when law enforcement might suspect a serial killer, they may not put that out if the media hasn't made the connection.

Someone like Gacy was active for years, with people making complaints against him and him being the last known employer for several missing persons, and his geographical area was fairly small, AND he had a prior felony sodomy conviction, yet he escaped detection until the investigation into his final victim (Robert Piest) pried the entire thing open. He had the remains of 29 victims on his own property.

People just don't suspect a serial killer until the entire thing unwinds. At least specific types of serial killers. Your Night Stalker types tend to be more disorganized and detected far more quickly.

There has been a ton of profiling work. Many of them want their "signature work" known. Gacy came from a different time period. I think there is a lot more paranoia nowadays and people will report more.

There are still serial killers. The FBI estimates about 25-50. But all it takes to make list is two separate killings apart.

Maybe the media doesn't care to make a person notorious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The number of killers who go out of their way to publicize their "work" and communicate with either LE or the press is pretty small. In the last century, the only two I can recall off the top of my head are BTK and Zodiac, and it got BTK caught. There are probably a couple more, but its more common for someone caught to exaggerate their body count than for an uncaught killer to brag about their exploits. Most serial killers, once caught, talk about how they assumed they were so superior to LE that they'd never be caught. They aren't really thinking about their legacy until maybe after they are finally found. And of course some deny it until their death, like both Gacy and Bundy.

I do agree that FBI estimates are probably a bit inflated from what most people would perceive as a serial killer, since the Bundys and Gacys and Zodiacs and Green River Killers all had a lot more than 2 killings to their list. The definition of a serial killer has never been clear cut. Nor is profiling, which is something of an art as well as an exhaustive understanding of criminal pathology, although I do find the topic/process fascinating and have quite a few books by FBI profilers as well.

And let's be serious, particularly in an age of diffuse standard and online media platforms, if any get their hands on what they think is a bonafide serial murder series, of course they report it. The best LE can usually do is get them to withhold specific pieces of evidence. If it bleeds, it leads. Even on a normal news day accidents and fires are lead stories. Just "normal" deaths and murders get press. A suspected serial series, if known, 100% makes the news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Alcala

Also known as the 'Dating Game Killer'



At the time he went on the show, he was a convicted rapist, registered sex offender, and had been on the FBI's 10 most wanted list. Great job, TV producers.

Although he 'won' the show, and thus a date with the contestant, she 'subsequently refused to go out with him, according to published reports, because she found him "creepy"'.

You are probably right that the media would report anything even remotely resembling a serial killer.

Yet, as far as I know, haven't heard about one in a very long time.

Now, that doesn't mean there are no serial killers. They just haven't found one that the public would love/hate that would sell papers.

The most recent serial killer I can recall is the Unabomber and he also communicated with the media, which was his ultimate demise. Very dangerous ploy to gain publicity (which they obviously want). All it takes is one slip up. They caught BTK solely because of deleted meta-data on a floppy disk.

You can probably get a way for a much longer time killing runaways, prostitutes, and migrants. To make it in the big-leagues, you have to go after professionals and college-students and just one murder will bring in the wrath of the entire community. The chances of killing multiple "honest" citizens for years and getting away with are nil. But that is what will get a serial killer on the news. I am sure a lot of sick folks don't have a problem with prostitutes, homeless and drug-addicts being killed. They don't care about them alive, so why should they really care about them dead.

It took a while for Seattle to get properly alarmed by Green River, who targeted mostly prostitutes, so yeah, in general, the more "worthless" the victims, the longer it takes to rouse a response.

However, jurisdiction is a real problem even in modern LE. Even if you stay in one city area, you tend to run across multiple city precincts, multiple suburb city/town cops, and possibly state or federal agencies depending on location/jurisdiction. And as unbelievable as this is, even in modern day, any separate jurisdictions will not have instant or easy communication with each other. They don't necessarily use the same software or share data unless specially requested. State databases are usually stuff like drivers information and for individuals who are/have been in the system, not active unsolved cases statewide. You have to actively cultivate good relationships across town lines, and some sheriffs and police chiefs are very territorial, particularly if they feel their leadership is threatened in some way. And there are no federal laws requiring certain cases or crimes be compiled in a central database for easy cross reference, although there have been some efforts.

I do hope/think modern computerization is going to ease some of what made serial killers so hard to catch, but only if all agencies adopt specific standards and a willingness to share information when a serial series is suspected.

For example, did you know that the gun used in the Tate murders (Manson) was turned in to one part of the LAPD while another part was looking for it, and they didn't "find" it at their own interagency branch for like 9 months? It didn't cause any harm to the case, but I certainly hope that's the sort of error that would never occur in a modern computerized police agency (although it could still happen across separate agencies). Particularly in cases that often hinge on scattered bits of physical evidence across multiple cases/victims/crime scenes, it's critical to get them collected as efficiently as possible, both to figure out who done it and secure a conviction.

Sleepers is a great movie about that sort of thing.

To become an interesting serial killer, you have to either do something new or top a previous killer. Even though a serial killer is defined as two separate random killings, that certainly won't make the news.

Nowadays, trying to do a puzzle of some sorts to solve a crime is way too risky. You would have the entire crowd-source power of the internet.

To become an interesting serial killer, you have to strike fear in the readers of the newspapers. They have to read it thinking, "that could be me next". That is why the Night Stalker in Los Angeles was so terrifying. Now more publicity equals a much greater likelihood of being caught.

I don't know how many serial killers want to be caught. BTK certainly did since he stopped killing, but egged on the media and police 13 years later over and over until the inevitable.

Very challenging catching serial killers and local police, especially if the crimes cross jurisdictions, would have any clue what is occurring. That is where the FBI comes in and they are very experienced at this. Still, they are dealing with true psychopaths and can only surmise what has occurred and what may occur next. Some of the 'best' serial killers can go years between killings. Makes it very challenging.

I hadn't read about the Night Stalker before. That's a creepy ****ing guy. Pretty ****ed up upbringing.

There's two things that make people. Genetics and their upbringing.

H. H. Holmes aka The Devil in the White City

Also Cersei Lannister.

This is pure power and terror and ensures that you will become infamous. When you can scare the prosecutor that you are capable of smuggling a gun to kill him and you have the entire jury believing you killed a juror, you have made it.

***Jury selection for the case started on July 22, 1988. At his first court appearance, Ramirez raised a hand with a pentagram drawn on it and yelled "Hail Satan". On August 3, 1988, the Los Angeles Times reported that some jail employees overheard Ramirez planning to shoot the prosecutor with a gun, which Ramirez intended to have smuggled into the courtroom. Consequently, a metal detector was installed outside the courtroom, and intensive searches were conducted on people entering. On August 14, the trial was interrupted because one of the jurors, Phyllis Singletary, did not arrive at the courtroom. Later that day, she was found shot to death in her apartment. The jury was terrified; they could not help wondering if Ramirez had somehow directed this event from inside his prison cell, and if he could reach other jury members. However, Ramirez was not responsible for Singletary's death; she had been shot and killed by her boyfriend, who later committed suicide with the same weapon in a hotel.[98] The alternate juror who replaced Singletary was too frightened to return to her home.***

Wayne Williams and David Berkowitz

The Son oF Sams.

The DC snipers come to mind as the most recent that fits this category. My brothers told me (jokingly) that whenever they stopped for gas, they made sure to continuously bob and weave during the process.

Good choice. I think these dip****s and BTK make it as the tops in the "most interesting" to me.

I've never understood why the latest terrorist groups haven't employed this type of strategy. Seems like it would generate way more "terror" than a van attack.

Yep. Was thinking this. I knew someone who ducked while filling their car with gas. He and his son got infamous. And ensured they would be caught soon.

To become "significant" and make the papers requires going after the newspaper's customer base. That is why the Green Ridge killer will never be in the same league as Bundy, Ramirez, BTK, or Berkowitz.

+1

I watched this years ago and I still remember him asking the interviewer to explain his mental condition to him.
To be completely void of a conscious and unaware is mind boggling.