I agree that back in the old days before there was such a word as serial killer that media and attention didnt mean a thing, Peter Stump is a good example but even modern day deranged serial killers like Richard Chase idolized and had newspaper clippings of the Hillside Stranglers.He was a very unorganised Serial Killer.There are always similarities in serial killings,but another bid for fame and attention that it brings the killer are signatures.A signature killer has somthing that he does every time he kills,letting the authorities know that its him.When you read an article where the killer left the bodies in a certain position,this is a signature,if he takes away with him a body part its a signature .Somthjing that ties all the victoms togeather can also be called a signature and this is communcation with the media .While all serial killers may leave signs,not all of them leave signatures.Signatures are proof that one person did the deed.who do they want to know that its their signature?The media so they will let the rest of the world know its them before they get cought
There is a degree of truth to your post, but I still think you have an overly stereotypical view of what actually defines a serial killer.
I think the whole "signature" thing, as least as a term, is a bit of a cliche. But if you mean that the majority of serial killers have at least some kind of a pattern, which could more accurately be called an M.O. or "Modus Operandi", which is then studied by law enforcement to help track down the killer, then yes, this is true.
But if you think that the average serial killer intentionally leaves clues, or seeks out to play games with the media, or wants recognition for being some kind of an artist, then you have been watching too many movies.
The Chase case interests me a lot, and I know a bit about it, but I am not an expert. I don't remember hearing or reading anything about any connection between him and the Hillside Stranglers, but this sounds possible if the time frames matched up. Although his crimes were very very different, and I am pretty sure that fame was about the last thing on his mind.
However, I agree that there are some killers like the Zodiac, or BTK, or Jack the Ripper, who fit the description of basically exactly what you are talking about.
I think the average serial killer is more of a "hobbyist", who has a life outside of the killing, and does it for a variety of reasons, but my guess is that the most common would bet have to do with a mix of some feelings of inferiority, and/or at least a desire to dominate others, and a sociopathic/psychopathic mind that is less empathetic than average and allows them to give into their impulses.
But you should not overlook that some killers don't even kill for the sake of killing, they do it to get rid of the victims they rape, abuse, torture etc. Or there are at least a couple who just like dead people around the house.
Edited by omnivorism on September 19 2012 15:15
A signature is what a killer does to satisfy their needs. MO is how they carry the crime out,
The fact of the matter is that these people have been fantasizing about their crimes when they were just children. This is what makes Ted Bundy's "blame the porn" excuse just laughable because when he was about 3 years old he took knifes and spread them around his aunt's body as she slept. CLEARLY HE WAS ALREADY FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD!
Most of the time when a serial killer stages a crime scene or something like that it's usually because they want to TERRIFY the entire country, its a power and control thing.
That is what is confused when this debate comes up. They confuse infamy with fear. Fear it seems to me to be the real reason why so many serial killers tend to stage the bodies and so forth. It's to cause shock, panic, and fear to the investigators and to the community at large. Only after the killer is caught is when they go into the infamy territory. But the fact of the matter is they would of committed the crimes no matter and I am going to state that as a fucking FACT.
A psychopathic 5 year old who kills animals and jacks off to thoughts of rape and necrophilia....a 5 year old, and you want to blame the media [news coverage, comic books, crime novels, nonfiction books, movies, video games.] for the future murders this 5 year old will commit? Talk about retardation fully realized.
As for Chase having a news paper of the Hillside stranglers. Not even sure this is true, but I find it funny you didnt pick a more obvious example such as....IDK.....Joel Rifkin who had news paper clippings of MULTIPLE serial killer cases. That is generally known among us types. Even Albert Fish having clippings of Fritz Haarmann would of made more sense. You just seemed to pick some obscure trivia if it is true.
Edited by jayofsunshine10 on September 19 2012 17:41
Look up Richard Chase in the murderpedia if you all think im just talking shit.Richard Chase had news paper clippings of the Hillside stranglers. Im 43 years old ive been in to serial killers since i was 15 years old the 70s and 80s are what kind of serial killers im into. Back then they didnt have no bullshit shows like Criminal Minds. Richard Chase was all fucked up in the head it just blows my mind you would never think someone like that would be a Hillside Strangler groupie.
There are a lot of fucked up kids who torture and kill small animals and really get off on it,but most of those kids grow out of it when they get older.It"s a known fact that all grown men fantacise about rape and murder but it dosent mean there going to go out and do the deed, and i dont think Joel Rifkin was deranged and fucked up in the head like Richard Chase
To: Liflessdead
Richard Chase was probably a paranoid schizophrenic with antisocial tendencies. Joel Rifkin probably had avoidant personality disorder with antisocial characteristics. Of the two, I would consider Richard Chase in less control of his own actions than Joel Rifkin because of his psychoses. Joel Rifkin seems to be more of a psychopathic personality than Chase. If we are trying to say who was more "fucked up in the head" or "deranged", I think a person who is driven to kill because he believes Nazis are turning his blood into powder and he needs more, is more psychotic than deranged. Compare that to Joel Rifkin, who killed prostitutes as a thrill and also as a way of getting back at women for perceived humiliation. That seems more "deranged" to me. Joel Rifkin made a more conscious choice to kill than Richard Chase. So, he's more evil to me than Chase. But, whatever lol.
"We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"
-Norman Bates, Psycho (1960)
Liflessdead
It"s a known fact that all grown men fantacise about rape and murder
This is what's known in mental health circles as "overgeneralizing". You are making the statement that it's a fact that all grown men fantasize about rape and murder. First of all, you don't know every male human on this planet. And if it's a fact, then cite your source. Otherwise, it's not a fact. It's an opinion. An opinion that gives women's rights activists a lot of ammunition lol
"We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"
-Norman Bates, Psycho (1960)
I actually suffer from avoidant personality disorder...I fucking HATE IT! I constantly am afraid of fucking up, even day to day stuff so I tend to try and weasel out of it. I know I am competent, but I don't want to do it because I am afraid I will fuck it up anyway. As a kid I would be made fun of for sitting in my own little spot every recess and just sit down and talk to my self, or read a book until the bell rang. Every single friend I've ever had abandoned me for a new kid, or just used me. Having this personality disorder fucking sucks.
Speaking for my self. All I got to say is Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.
Edited by jayofsunshine10 on September 22 2012 18:30
The good book states that we were made in His image. I hope that's just physically. Otherwise, WTF!?!?!?
You might be onto something there....why would rape and murder exist if god didn't like it? In fact the bible condones sex slavery. Moses who is a "holy man" who "freed god's people" told his soldiers to go in and slaughter an entire town. When they came back Moses told them to go back, slaughter all the cattle, all the women, and all children escept for the virgin girls.....which would of meant girls who were about 12 or 13 and "take them for your selves." Many christians will say "It never says the soldiers RAPED THEM! It never specifies what age they were." Yeah and where in the bible does it ever talk about abortion? Except to ENDORSE abortion? Such as bashing the heads of babys against the rock, stabbing pregnant women so their child doesn't spread their 'false religion" with them, or the potion of basically disgusting water to cause a miscarriage. "well it's implied" Yeah...what ever.
Edited by jayofsunshine10 on September 22 2012 18:40
