Talk:Serial killer/Archive 1

Important!

I have found some false facts about serial killers on this page, including the following:

1. Serial killers must kill on three ocassions (this has been changed to seven by psychologists).

A. The writer assumes all serial killers are mentally abused and seek a form of revenge.

B. The writer also assumes the serial killers are sexually motivated.

2. Compulsion is linked to sexual/power drive (this is rarely the situation).

3. Result of brain damage (no known brain damage victims become homocidal, or we have more to fear from car accidents than ever before).

Serial killers don't mope around, grinding their palms together thinking "I'm gunna get my revenge!" Nor do they kill to feel power or control. Feelings of power and control come from abduction and/or the binding of a victim. The killing must be done out of impulse, not through premeditation. If they are driven by sexual desires, they are a serial rapist and murderer.

I've decided rather than deleting the power/control section, I'm going to comment it out until there is at least one killer marked by name. I would hate to be proven wrong and destroy a perfectly good topic.

If you think I'm wrong, then PLEASE prove me wrong. I've spoken to psychologists about serial killers, since my previous major was psychology, but I would feel better if an EXPERT got all the facts perfect, rather than my half-assed memory, or worse, Hollywood's opinion of a serial killer. Dont assume that once you've seen an episode of CSI, you understand how a killer ticks. ElijahD 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Replies to Important

• The standard of three victims comes from the FBI definations. A minimun of seven is ludicrous-this would mean for example that Jack the Ripper doesn't qualify as a serial killer!

• Dysfunction is a common factor is the background of the vast majority of serial killers. Refer statistics in Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives.

• Equally acquired brain injury is a factor in personality change and many serial killers have a history of such injury.

• The idea that serial killing is done from impulse rather than premeditation is silly. Captured killers such as Ted Bundy and Ed Kemper spend endless days searching for victims by their own confessions. Their are impulsive serial killers but they tend to fall into the disorganized catagory

• Many serial killer talk about the power they feel having the vctims life as theirs to take.

Generally

I fail to see how only natural death would stop a serial killer. Wouldn't any form of death stop the serial killer, or do you know something the rest of us don't?

I've revised the distinction between mass and serial killers to remove apparent reasons for such actions from the distinction. Underlying motivation has nothing to do with the difference in meaning between these two terms.

The reasons for serial killers have been moved in the article; the reasons for mass murderers have been deleted entirely. They don't belong here, but in the article on mass murder instead. Eclecticology 19:09 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

I beg to differ. IMHO, the articles on serial killer and especially mass murder and spree killer should be revisited and rewritten. Mass murder seems to talk about state-level exterminations, which (IMO) ought to be listed under genocide or democide. At the moment, there is no good article about "going postal".

The main differences between a serial killer and a mass murderer are

Serial killer	Mass murderer
Kills several people over a long period of time	Kills several people during a single event or several closely related events (e.g. killing the parents or other relatives first, then going to work/school etc. and killing the co-workers)
Tends to choose the victims carefully	Victims are completely random
Killers can be both men and women	Killers are almost exclusively male
Intelligent, good with social skills "He was such a nice guy, I never would've suspected him"	Of average intelligence. Poor social skills, trouble at work etc. "I knew he was going to do something like this"
Tries to avoid capture (at least in the beginning)	No attempt to avoid capture tends to commit suicide or act so recklessly that the police has to shoot
Murders are usually sexually motivated, usually following some particular quirk	Has long-time problems at work, with the girlfriend, perhaps financial problems etc. The killing starts after a stressor occurs; the "final straw": Gets fired, girlfriend breaks up, is left to his class etc.

This is very oversimplified, but you should get the idea. In the table above, I do not consider terrorist acts as mass murder, although technically they are considered as such. --Card

I agree with the person who says mass murder should be differentiated from serial killer and from genocide. Genocide is legalized murder by the state.

Genocide is a State-sanctioned attempt at extermination of a group based on ethnicity; for instance, the Jews under Hitler, the Kurds under Saddam Hussein, the Bosnians under Slobodan Milosevic, and (some would argue) the Palestinians in modern-day Israel. Euthanasia and execution both fall under the umbrella of "legalised murder by the state". thefamouseccles

My sister is a fanatic of Serial Killers and has informed me of the difference; a serial killer usually kills only one (or perhaps two) people at a time and does it more than once. A mass murderer kills a large number of people and might only do it once. Mohammet and Malvo, the two gentlemen who shot up the Washington-Richmond corridor, would be classed as serial killers. The Manson family members were both.

Mass murderers kill at wholesale; serial killers kill at retail. A serial killer can be likened to a roadside fruit stand and a mass murderer to a supermarket produce department. The volumes of "transactions" they handle are different. Paul -- Rfc1394 22:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The list of serial killers is getting long. Any objections if I split it into its own seperate article? PMC 20:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

"Several say they've been influenced by the bible"?!? Can we name one or at least cite the source for this spurious info? Several statements here are unverifiable and unencyclopedic. Zosodada 01:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Relax, I don't think they meant to criticize Christianity. They probably meant that there are people in the Bible that the serial killers admire, who aren't necessarily the good guys. -- Eddy

Sorry, but in the "differences table" point 2, 4 and 6 on the left (serial killers) are simply and completely wrong. eliZZZa 22:27, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)eliZZZa

I disagree with you on all counts, and here's why:

Point 2 - Most serial killers do pick their victims carefully, or by a specific system. Robert Pickton, for example, only killed prostitutes from Vancouver's downtown east side. And then, mostly only native prostitutes. Ted Bundy was particularly fond of killing college girls. David Berkowitz preferred women with long, dark hair, and young couples. Émile Louis preyed almost exclusively on young, handicapped women.

Point 4 - Once again, most serial killers are the people that you'd least suspect. The neighbours almost always say, "No, not so-and-so!" For example, Ted Bundy, once again, was often described as charming, educated, personable, and generally a good guy. John Wayne Gacy volunteered as a clown at a local hospital. Charles Manson was charismatic enough to recruit a "family" to kill for him - crazy though he might be, he had charisma and animal magnetism.

Point 6 - Point 6 is slightly exaggerated, but still applicable to many SK's. Jeffrey Dahmer liked to kill, fuck, and then eat bodies. Bundy often sexually assaulted his victims. Many SK's are necrophiles or cannibals or both - I'd say necrophilia is a "particular quirk". Leonard Lake and Charles Ng were very fond of collecting sex slaves and then killing them: another sexually-motivated case.

So, while all 6 points were, as stated, grossly oversimplified, they are not "simply and completely wrong". [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 00:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The serial killer who stopped after his first...

On its current state as of Feb 17, 2005, this article reads:

"On average, serial killers start murdering people when they are in their mid-twenties. When they start they can rarely stop."

I don't know what the rest of my fellow wikipedians think, but I think that if a Serial killer would stop after starting... well... I just think they wouldn't be serial killers, but just murderers.

I suggest that there be some mention of another species of serial killer, the so-called "angel of mercy". The classification is quite controversial, in part because this is one area of crime in which women seem to dominate the field. Because the motives for such killings tend to be delusional, this might be classified as a subset of the genus Visionary. The distinction of angel-of-mercy killers is pretty objective, in that it is their victims rather than their motives that stand out - infants and the elderly.

Also, a mention of Jim and Debbie Goad's infamous "Serial Killers and Mass Murderers" issue of "Answer Me!" might be appropriate, not because it is particularly scholarly, but because it is a good example of popular culture's (possibly unhealthy, possibly necessary) fascination with true-crime monsters.

Female serial killers

Does anyone else think it's necessary or even possible to make a seperate section dealing with the topic of women who kill? There's a decent number of female serial killers, although they make up a small percentage of all serial killers. ONEder Boy 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don´t mind, while you discuss that question, I place an external link to my rather comprehensive list of female serial killers (within crimeZZZ.net) to the serial killer page. (unsigned, but by User:EliZZZa)

DreamGuy´s generosity

Could you please explain the point of your "generousity" to me (I´ve added a page on my site listing female serial killer bios)? "revert spam --we already quite generously have one link to that person's site here, don't need multiple links to the same site..."(unsigned, but by User:EliZZZa)

Generosity, meaning normally we do not let editors come here and add links to their own websites in blatant self-promotional moves. When I removed your spam from, what was it, hundreds of articles a year ago, I quite generously decided to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one link here. You evidently decided to push your luck and spammed a couple more links here. Be thankful I didn't delete the original one too. See WP:Spam, WP:External links, and other related policies. And, you know, come to think of it, now that I went to look at your site again, it is pretty spammy... way to try to cram a zillion words into the title field to try to get more results in Google. I almost removed that link right now, but decided for now to just update the name as it appears on the link to be more accurate. DreamGuy 06:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of victimZZZ.net

Any good reason for that? Victims of serial killers are not worth to be mentioned? Or because it is another site from the same "person"? (unsigned, but by User:EliZZZa)

It's just another attempt for you to link farm your sites. You break your one website up into multiple domains to try to guide more traffic to it. Your other site already links prominently to that site. There's absolutely no reason to have multiple links to your site here. DreamGuy 06:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cultural explanations an actual theory?

Under Prevalence section: "Cultural differences could account for a larger number of serial killers, not just a larger number of reported cases."

While this makes sense that this would be a theory someone might propose, it seems like someone just made it up and is therfore questionable, as per Wikipedia's verifiability and "no original research" policies. Given that this assertion does not seem likely to be a common theory, the burden of proof is on the claim and I therefore think we need an example.

The sentence could also be written better and should probably also be rephrased to something like "Some have suggested cultural differences may account for some of the differences in prevalence throughout the world," with an exemplary reference.

A peer-reviewed psychology/sociology/anthropology journal might have such an article.

If no outside sources can be found, I suggest we remove this sentence. Anagrammarian 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have read about a similar theory. It had to do with the fact that serial killers kill almost without exception outside their personal social circle, nearly always choosing strangers or people they do not know as a person (so they can live out their fantasies more strongly). Cultural differences, i.e. strong bonds of familiarity in smaller communitys, are thought to inhibit this kind of behaviour, even if there is a higher cultural acceptance of violence and/or killing as a whole. I'll try and find the source again, but I can't promise anything. --TheOtherStephan 03:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More Citations

I agree with Anagrammarian's statements above, but also think that the article states many ideas that might be someone's opinion on how serial killers are or are not abused. However, without citations, it seems these could simply be myths about bed wetting and abuse. I'm not a psychologist, so I am not totally familiar with these claims, though I have heard teachers say it is not really accurate. Changing this section or adding citations would help this article. DanteDanti 9:46, 20 Jan. 2006

I agree. This whole article could do with more citation. Pdarley 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I just wanted everyone to know that the link *Write-A-Murderer – Scans of letters from famous serial killers, Manson, Bundy, Gacy leads directly to the serial killers forum where the letters are posted and scanned. Please check all links BEFORE editing.

And I removed it as spam... page doesn;t ecist, if it did it's just some messageboard, not encyclopedic, no reason to have it here, and your account has been going around spamming articles, so no reason to keep any of them. DreamGuy 05:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Next time try actually looking at the link. It is a message board but the letters are scaned into the articles. Not everyone knows how to do a webpage so scanning the letters into a message board format is the best you get. Before you knock something why don't you actually look at it... Oh I forgot you can't read right? Maybe it's just to hard for you to click on a link and check it out. You know everything right?

Serial Killer Database

http://www(dot)serialkillerdatabase(dot)net/ I am posting my site on this page and asking that everyone please consider allowing my link in the External Links of the "serial killers" page on Wikipedia. I registered for my own domain and plan to make the site a great source for serial killers. It's not just some slopped-together page and I plan to make it a huge site. I also link back to each serial killer's Wikipedia entry. Thank you. SykoByte

But you only have 8 killers on your database - we already have 31 in Category:Serial killers, and another 88 in Category:Female serial killers. It hardly seems worth it at the moment. -- Arwel (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I only have 8 so far because I do a lot of research on each before I finish a page. I will be adding many more as time goes by. I just finished a whole revamp of the site so that's why I haven't added anyone as of this week. It takes a lot of work and I am very proud of it so far. I think my site would fit nicely as I've seen so many other sites that were just smacked together in a day that are terrible. Anybody who is a serial killer fanatic would enjoy my site. Another site that would fit here would be www.skcentral.com I mean why not give Wikipedia visitors links to more SK sites? I've already had a ton more visitors since adding my links so obviously people are checking out the sites. SykoByte

Yes, I understand that you're very proud of your website, but you can't link to it. It is not allowed, period. Why? Well, it's a matter of quality assurance. If someone else than the owner of the site finds it interesting and useful enough to link to from Wikipedia, it should be linked. Otherwise, it should not. And, if the information on the external website can be found on Wikipedia already, it should not be linked. That is why we have external links, to supply more information on the subject. Not to allow owners of small websites to promote themselves. If we let that rule fly, external links will become useless. / Magore 08:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but if the serial killer hitlist from mayhem.net can be listed, so can mine. Quit playing God. SykoByte

Sorry, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. A consensus must be achieved for any disputed action.

mayhem.net is very different from your site, in that it actually has a substantial amount of information that isn't already in Wikipedia. Your site has 8 profiles, with each page hosting a slew of Amazon Associate links; when it comes to content, mayhem.net has you beat solidly. EVula 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(As posted on DreamGuy's Talk Page) I think you guys need to lighten up on these so-called "spam" matters. If I had posted my site on a page about french toast, then I could understand the problem, but my site is about serial killers and therefore I posted it on the SK page and the pages of killers I have finished my pages for. I can't believe you guys go this far to kick someone's work.

If you really don't want people posting external links, then add the content that is missing from the Wikipedia articles, and get rid of external links alltogether. But make it fair. The interent is nothing but links, that's how people find new sites. SykoByte

For the last time here: you don't make the rules. The rules very explicity say you can't add your own link. Your site sucks. You are a spammer. It's not "playing God" to follow the rules of this site and remove your spam. All of your edits to this encyclopedia have been either to link to your own site or to complain about the links being removed. You are only here to abuse the site, which means you will never, ever get your links approved. Go away and stop bothering us. DreamGuy 23:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it can't be listed. Wikipedia isn't a web directory. Only sites that are useful beyond Wikipedia can be listed. Yours aren't. Get over it and stop behaving like an obnoxious teenager. Your site needs a lot of work before someone will consider it a useful source of information. It looks like something made with Notepad and Paint Shop Pro during the early nineties, and doesn't contain much useful info. Seems you're the only one who fail to realize that, though. Why not starting to contribute to the articles on the subject instead of bitching about not getting to link to your own site? Or, to be more clear, why don't YOU add the information that you think should be in the articles here at Wikipedia, instead of asking why others haven't added it, and trying to use that as a reason for linking to your own site? Let's face it, you're here only to promote your own website, and you know that it would be pretty useless if you added the information here instead of linking to your it. Sorry, but you don't feel that credible. /Magore 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs citations

Some of this artical contains apocryphal stories...specifically in describing the "types" I think these need to be cited or replaced with specific examples protohiro 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole article seems to be lacking sources/cites. They need to be checked on and inserted into the article. Otherwise, there are multiple statements that are in need of deletion. --Ubiq 00:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Ed Gein a serial killer?

The definition of serial killer requires that a person kill 3 people. The description of Ed Gein states that he killed 2 people.

Thus, should Ed Gein even be mentioned here?

I agree. Ed Gein was just a wacko with mommy-issues. I am so tired of people acting like he was the proto-Dahmer/Bundy. He wasn't. A retardate with necrophilic and cannibalistic tendencies does not a serial killer make. Not to mention the 'Leatherface' bullshit that everyone under the age of 21 seems to believe nowadays. Roland Deschain 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed Gein is not a serial killer. All the books I've read may mention him but he does not fit the criteria.ShadowWriter 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ed Gein was known to have killed two people but is suspected in many other deaths. He had the remains of dozens of other bodies in his house but the authorites decided not to persue investigation of how many were from his grave robbing and how many from murder. So technically not a serial killer but then again Charlie Manson never personally killed anyone yet is considered a serial killer and Jack Unterweger is technically unconviced (his suicide before appeals invalidates his conviction under Austrian Law) -So overall Gein passed all the criteria of a serial killer save that his finaly tally of victims is unsure, with a minimum of two. Compromise at best is probably a mention of him here but that he only has two definate victims. 12: 20 3 Nov 2006

• I would consider Charlie Manson (and the Family) more in the mass murderer/terrorist mold than serial murder. Roland Deschain 05:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No citations, and I removed this para

From "Notes":

(1)The FBI estimates that there are between 35-and 50 serial killers active in a given year. If 5000 people a year are being killed by serial killers then each killer must be accounting for between 100 and 142 victims. Even Joel Norris's own figures of 500 serial killers (Michael Newton's Encyclopedia of known serial killers for the entire 20th century has contained less than 500 entries) mean that they would have to be killing ten people each annually, a number that few of known serial killers reach in their entire "careers".

Since it's completely unobvious where the '5000 people a year' number comes from, the paragraph is meaningless. Hell, if 50,000 people a year are being killed by 50 serial killers, it means they're all killing three a day! zomg! FiggyBee 03:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On Motive Types

It stated that there were "five" categories ... I count four. There's also no citation for this section. P L Logan 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no citations for anything. I've added the citations tag.

The fifth category is still there, it was just commented out in this edit for some reason. I've readded it for now, but really this whole article needs rewriting, with sources. FiggyBee 04:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

3 or 5?

I changed the figure in the introduction to 3, in keeping with information which contradicted this figure later in the article, and also in this discussion page. Although I think that a citation would be helpful here. Pathlessdesert 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should state three, which is the basis that the FBI uses to determine a serial killer, we should not have random number all over the article, if someone can cite a better source and number to use then we can change it, but I think the FBI is a great source for info revolving around serial killers. --Chad 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Serial killers in popular culture...

this is becoming a speculative list that could potentially dwarf the rest of the article. I removed this section and placed it below:

Because of the horrific nature of their crimes, their highly varied personalities and profiles, and their ability to evade detection and kill many victims before finally being captured and imprisoned, serial killers have quickly become something of a cult favorite, and have been featured in many novels, movies, songs, comic books, true crime works, video games, and other media.

The public's fascination with serial killers led to many successful crime novels and films about fictional serial killers, including Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho; and especially Thomas Harris' The Silence of the Lambs and its Academy Award-winning movie adaptation, whose main antagonist, the cannibalistic serial killer Hannibal Lecter, has become a cultural icon. The character John Doe, from the movie Se7en, is another well-known fictional serial killer. Rob Zombie's first two films, House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects, revolve around an entire family of fictional serial killers, featuring such characters as the visionary/hedonistic killer Otis, his more disorganized sister Baby, and her father, Captain Spaulding. The 2006 comic book series Family Bones tells the tale of the Copeland Murders in Missouri. Ray and Faye Copeland were the oldest American couple sentenced to death. Their great nephew, Shawn Granger wrote the series as an insider. The comic book Johnny The Homicidal Maniac revolves around a serial killer that drains the blood out of his victims and uses it to paint a wall in order to keep an unknown monster from escaping. One of the first and most popular psychopaths in film history is Norman Bates from Alfred Hitchcock's film Psycho.

Serial killer memorabilia and serial killer lore is a subculture revolving around the legacies of various infamous and notorious serial killers. While memorabilia is generally confined to the paintings, writings, and poems of infamous killers, a market has expanded in recent years with serial killer encyclopedias, trading cards, and even action figurines. Some of the best known articles of serial killer memorabilia include the clown paintings of John Wayne Gacy and the poetry of Jack Unterweger.

In anime there are serial killers like Johan Liebert in MONSTER, Barry the Chopper in Full Metal Alchemist, or Chopman in Yu-Gi-Oh (manga only). Jin-e Udo, Kenshin Himura's first powerful enemy could be classified as a serial murderer, and a torture murder since he loved seeing the blood of his victims and making a worthy opponent suffer.

Not sure what should be done with this material. Any ideas? Pathlessdesert 01:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have a List of fictional serial killers. I'd say put the general information (the first and third paragraphs) back, and put a link to the above-mentioned article. FiggyBee 01:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, back they go! Pathlessdesert 00:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words used in article.

"Many experts have claimed that once serial killers start they cannot (or only rarely) stop." What experts? In what field of study? How many "experts"? When have they made such claims? Where are these claims published?Et2.geiger 04:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Offensive...?

Maybe it's just me...but I found this statement to be extremely, and unnecessarily, inflammatory:

"Would anyone have some statistics on "Muslim" serial killers. They are known as Jihadists, but they are much more often serial killers and mass murderers than whites, blacks and hispanics put together.Let's remember too that Islam is not a race, but an ideology that promotes these killings." (Defining Serial Murder section, last paragraph)

This seems to me to be awfully close to the comment made by Pope Benedict several months ago that sparked so much outrage in the global community. While it is true that Jihad is an Islamic concept, Islam promotes neither mass killing nor serial killing. The above comment would be akin to "Christianity is an ideology that promotes genocide" (as evidenced by the Anti-Semitic and Anti-Islamic nature of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Palestinian genocide).

I don't believe that that comment is accurate, as I do not believe the one featured in the article is. Furthermore, I don't believe either is relevant in a discussion of "serial killers," particularly as defined earlier in the article. For fear of being labeled an "editing extremist," I thought I'd bring this to the attention of the knowledgeable Wikipedia community, and let this progress as it will. Suppressio nocturna 21:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Gary Ridgway

I noticed Gary listed as a missonary killer, and I'm by no means an expert on the guy but to me he seems more like a control or hedonistic killer. He dudn't hate prostitutes or beleive they deserved to die, he was obsessed with them. Gary would have sex with them then strangle them at his orgasm, that seems more like a control thing or some kind of fetish. I could be wrong but thats how it seems to me.

Stereotype

I edited the line "The white male stereotype is not actually a stereotype, however, since white males are more likely to be serial killers than male African Americans or male Hispanics." Whoever wrote this obviously doesn't understand what a stereotype is. Herr Lip 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

um, more to the point the facts cited (racial percentages) are disputed. From the NYT:

There have been few studies of the race and ethnicity of serial killers, but the handful that have been done suggest that black serial killers occur in roughly equal -- or even slightly greater -- proportion to the number of blacks in the population. These studies estimate that between 13 and 22 percent of American serial killers are black.

(blacks are roughly 12.5 of the American population)

I can dig up other articles to corroborate. Mr. Me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.151.92.100 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

In my opinion the whole paragraph comparing racist prejudices to statistics is not only ridiculous, but also of no encyclopedic value. Besides the numbers were implausible and contradictory. I have thus removed it.--Malbi 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious. The passage about how whites are disproportionately serial killers was "relevant" for God knows how long (without references), then I corrected it to reflect the fact that blacks are disproportionately serial killers (recent study (2004) shows they're 21% of serial killers (12% of population) and gave references, and now suddenly the entire topic is deemed "irrelevant" and memory-holed (said determination following closely on the heels of my reality-check, of course).

Good to know the racial liberal (i.e., anti-white) bias is still in full effect at Wikipedia, the people's Pravda, and to have it so blatantly displayed. What a pack of moral cowards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.32.191 (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

these statistics are stated all over, i'll find out the exact sites and list references, but I know studies have found these stats to be accurate and the FBI also confirms these stats, they are in no way racist, and offer value by listings and are compared on the basis of known serial killers but as most stats they are not used to compare future serial killers, but only to find basis of previous and known serial killers and to maybe find a link and motives for why people become serial killers, our culture and or race may be a key as to how we grow up and provide a clue. --Chad 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mask of Sanity

Hervey M. Cleckley used the metaphor "mask of sanity" to describe psychopaths rather than serial killers per se. His book The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality details his theories about the cause of the disorder, a description of characteristic personality traits, and several vignettes of people with the full personality disorder as well as those who show hints of the same disorder.

He chose the metaphor because unlike a patient suffering from schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, whose behavior and thinking is readily identified as abnormal, the psychopath can come across as intelligent, worldly, self-assured, and competent. This contrasts with their vacuous handling of relationships, pointless and easily discovered crime, and other bizarre, senseless behaviors. Cleckley sees them as having something akin to a semantic aphasia; the world of emotions—their ability to motivate—does not penetrate their psyches.

Robert D. Hare, however, takes a much less sympathetic view of psychopaths, and I do not know if he makes use of the phrase "mask of sanity." He sees them as definitely sane but also morally depraved. He believes their antisocial behavior is very much deliberate, and their emotional detachment is a consequence of their self-centered attitude. He does not see them as buffoonishly making their way through life but rather as calculatingly manipulating and exploiting others to get what they want.--NeantHumain 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Racism

While the pervasive image of the white male as a serial killer is merely a stereotype, white males are more likely to be serial killers than male African Americans or male Hispanics. African Americans make up 12% of the American population but 5% of serial killers. Hispanics account for approximately the same percentages. Whites make up around 75% of the population but 90% of all serial killers, making whites proportionately more likely to be serial killers. [1]

The above is one of the most racist statements I have ever seen in a wikipedia article. Can someone clean this up to make it not sound like the entire Caucasian population is a group of sociopathic murderers? Perhaps fix it up to say "serial killers are more likely to be white" than "whites are more likely to be serial killers." Kakashi-sensei 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Those two statements you've listed have very different meanings, and I really don't see how (assuming these statistics are good) this paragraph is racist. It could definitely do with some rewording, though. Either way, it was much worse before. Herr Lip 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought: blacks rape at a rate six times the rate whites do; in terms of black and white, interracial gang rape is an almost entirely black phenomenon (roughly 3000 a year vs. roughly zero a year); should these facts go into the rape article? I totally agree with your assertion that the statistics cannot be racist, but I've had a difficult time making the argument that inclusion of those statistics in articles isn't racist either - in other words, your policy doesn't seem to be overall Wikipedia policy. Mr. Me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.161.171.62 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Exactly, if we're going down that lane blacks are much more criminal types than whites, if you look at what percentage of all crimes serial killings are it's probably fairly low, so I'll agree whites are more likely to be serial killers if you agree blacks are more criminal overall?

82.9.31.149 10:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

David Berkowitz

It has been quite frustrating for me as I have observed many different sights including this one that referr to David Berkowitz as a serial killer. I find it to be frustrating because the facts that have been uncovered in regard to "The Son Of Sam Murders", continue to go unrecognized by so many authors, and so many pass Berkowitz off as another crazy killer. Truth of the matter, there is a web of deceit that ventures much deeper and involves many people. Berkowitz was a member of a satanic cult and the reason behind the murders is much more complex than the act of a serial killer. These acts, not random, were more than likely a cover up for something that involved the workings of the cult that Berkowitz was a member of. His arrest was a diversion, a bone for the media to push, and the public to believe that the killer was found and the police solved the crime, not true. Berkowitz himself was not responsible for the deaths of all of the victoms. That does not mean to say that Berkowitz is not guilty, he participated in the acts, but not alone. There is an extensive amount of information about this subject matter in, Maury Terry's book "The Ultimate Evil" that he wrote in 1993 and updated it in 1997. Terry is a investigative reporter that heavily submerged himself in this subject to the point that his life is at risk for what he knows and what he has revealed. This book is very interesting and it reveals the interworkings of a cult titled "The Process Church" to an alarming degree. In the book Terry even maps out how Charles Manson was involved with this cult and that Manson's motivation to commit the infamous murders, originates with in the cult, although Manson made the task of murder fit his own distorted motivations ultimately--65.89.231.243 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Serial Murderer

...or, more correctly, serial murderer... [1]

Why more correctly? Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Serial Murderer" is the more formal term used in criminology texts. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Check

The article reads: "Missionary killers differ from other types of serial killer in that their motive is generally non-sexual"

I believe it should use the plural of "serial killers". Meaning it would read:

"Missionary killers differ from other types of serial killers in that their motive is generally non-sexual"

If anybody is more confident in their English than I, please either adjust the article or simply remove this entry from this discussion page.

Thanks DRA 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I've created an infobox. I'm not sure if it's good enough to implement so if anybody wants to take a look at it check out Template:Infobox Serial Killer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ONEder Boy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Body Count list?

Is there a wiki that lists the body counts for serial killers domestically/globally?

I was looking around and couldn't find one. It'd be interesting to see which ones were more prolific vs. notorious. TotalTommyTerror 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be blunt but that's nigh upon impossible, I don't know the precise figures, but I read that in New York, last year, around 1/3 of homicides were unsolved, all or none of them could have been perpetrated by a serial killer. It's rather impractical, taking into account the number of cases of Missing Persons (which are much harder to ascertain figures for outside the Western World) and supposed run- aways and then all of the unsolved deaths.

82.9.31.149 10:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

White serial killers

"The accepted stereotype of American serial killers is that they are disproportionately likely to be white and male, but there have been exceptions."

• WTF? Since when? The DC sniper was black. This may be true but it's a far cry from widely accepted! The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.97.211.4 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Although that is true that the DC Sniper or Snipers were black, the stereotype is used to describe the general public perception of a serial killer, which have mainly been White Males 25-35 years of age. there have been many others including blacks and females but it is very widly accepted but as with most stereotypes they are not nessessarly right. --Chad 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The police missed the DC snipers partly because they were looking for white killers. Hence the original comment is valid, as long as there is a source.Malick78 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is all over the place and says the same thing in more than location and there isn't many sources, it is scattered in the info so I have tried alittle to help remedy this, if someone can help by adding sources, I will do my best to source it out over the next few days hopefully this meet with everyones liking. --Chad 06:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Temper loss?

What about people who are on a very short fuse and throughout their life kill more than three people in incidents of temper loss, which category of killer do they belong in?

82.9.31.149 10:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Spree killer. VolatileChemical 05:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, scratch that...that actually does qualify as serial killer, I'm afraid. VolatileChemical 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What's this about having to be over 30 days?

Why is one only a serial killer after one has been killing for at least thirty days? The Ipswitch killer began his killings on December 2, 2006. By December 15, 2006, he had five victims dead. Are we to assume that as late as January 1, 2007, the Ipswitch killer could not correctly be called a serial killer? That's crazy. We have to either cite a source for that 30 day definition in the introduction very fast, or it's coming down. VolatileChemical 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Five killings in fewer than 30 days would be a spree killer and not a serial killer. It's not coming down, this is pretty basic information when it comes to serial killing. A source would be a good idea, but it's so fundamental that removing it before the source gets up would damage the article tremendously. DreamGuy 06:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The 30 days idea is bollocks unless a citation is provided. Why would tying the concept to the moon's cycles make sense??Malick78 13:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Freaking every reference on the topic in the world mentions the 30 days idea... It has nothing to do with moon cycles, it has to do with differentiating psychology of killers... ones who methodically kill over time, ones who go on a quick spree over a short time, and ones who kill a bunch of people at once. How can you have read anything about serial killers ever and not known something like this? DreamGuy 19:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• "every reference on the topic in the world mentions the 30 days idea." - so give me one reference:) The point I was making is why is it 30 days and not 20,25,35... 30 is a month - a very arbitrary time period originally chosen to coincide roughly with the moon's phases - it's a subtle distinction, so I quite understand why you're confused DreamGuy. Malick78 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words tag

I think the weasel words tag is excessive, as there are only a few lines the anon editor who placed it there felt significant enough to tag, and those tags should make the overall tag unnecessary. I also don't think there's much weaseling going on at all in the first place, though fact tags to invite sources are certainly welcome. DreamGuy 06:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited the Serial Killer article

I made some changes to the Serial Killer article, took out some weasel words, cleared areas that required citation, and made some small changes that pushed the article into the neutral zone that it needs to be in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeeyedhawk (talk • contribs)

And I reverted all of that, as it got rid of important, factual information, replaced it with incorrect information. This was some pretty basic stuff core to the concept of serial killers. DreamGuy 02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs sources, badly.

I work as a forensic psychologist and while I'm not a serial killer specialist I have researched the area enough to believe I would have heard of things such as the following.

"Some serial killers go to lengths to make their crimes difficult to discover, such as falsifying suicide notes, setting up others to take the blame for their crimes, and faking gang warfare"

-There are cases where I have heard of falsified suicide notes, but faking gang warfare and setting up others? Could someone provide a source here? I'll gladly accept it if that is infact true, but a source is something needed.

Much of the article is well written and organized but it is completely unsourced and this calls into question the credibility of much of the information here in within among readers. Editers should start adding sources to whatever piece of infomation they add.

Not to mention the article is extremely plain. Pictures anyone? Media pictures of serial killers aren't IP, they are public property so pretty much any one of the many pictures of serial killers available on the web could be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You are incorrect on the photos. Most of them are not public property. Ones made by law enforcement should be fine though, but not random ones taken from books and newspapers and so forth. DreamGuy 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

For the sake of you and the other poster I have researched wikipedia policy.

"Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source. See that page for more information about Wikipedia's policy on sourcing."

No name guy is right that you should begin sourcing your article or not post at all. His source is reliable because it is not original research and it doesn't depend on the website it links to as the website is simply "reporting" information that is public news (i.e the quote of a third party involved in relevant discussion)

Both of you should stop the childish editing back and forth, and DreamGuy you will have to accept the sourced information as pertaining relevantly to the article and find more of your own sources. I will be contacting administration if you keep abusing editing rights by censoring sourced information and passing off your own un-sourced information as valid.Editor18

The things being deleted are sourced all over the bloody place. If the anon user (you?) bothered to look he'd find them all over. Tons of articles all over are entirely unsourced. That is NOT an excuse to remove the whole page. I would argue that these sections have not been "challenged" per the verifiability policy, as that's for if there is a legitimate dispute. There isn't any. It's just some anonymous ignorant person ripping out the most important parts of the article. The things being deleted are the ABSOLUTE LAST things on the article that should be deleted, as they are by far the most well known, least controversial, and trivially sourced. It's odd that out of all the whole entire article the things this person is yanking out. It's bizarre.

And I do not have to accept "sourced information" when the sources do not meet reliability guidelines. Don't threaten me wiuth contacting administration when you yourself are the own abusing policies here to support an anon editor who is most likely yourself. I've looked at your edit history, and it consists largely of spamming links to nonnotable messageboards, completely in violation of multiple policies here. If anything you and your anon edits should be the one who is worried. DreamGuy 09:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ALSO, if you are going to remove one section about Jack the Ripper because we don't need two, you absolutely should not remove the one that has been in the article and approved and edited for years and replace it with the crappy one the anon IP editor threw together without reading anything and the totally pointless image and so forth. It looks to me like the anon user just pulled out an account he hadn't bothered to use for a while to show up and pretend to be more than one person. DreamGuy 09:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Murderous medicine

"Arguably the biggest field producing serial killers is doctors, followed closely by nursing"

While this may be true isn't it more likely that the professions listed are an effect rather than a cause of the serial killing. Meaning that a person with the potential to become a serial killer is more likely to go into medicine than any other field, either because of the close contact with a wide range of people, the complete trust associated with those professions, the ability to work with patients bodies and possibly perform or assist in surgery, or all of the above.66.176.172.119 06:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Whether it's cause or effect, the fact is there is an inherent connection here, enough for the British Medical Association to publish articles on it (see here for instance). Just think, a person chooses to study medicine in their teens and then only in their twenties or later do they start to murder (generally speaking). Therefore it is the opportunity they have in medicine and the 'lack of controls' that allows them to kill. It is therefore a notable aspect of the profession.Malick78 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a disposition of the type that is required to commit serial murders is inherent. Thus the choice to follow medicine is more likely because of the malicious nature, because of the reasons detailed above. Also to point out flaws in your logic: some serial killers began murdering in their late teens to early twenties, and medicine is no more uncontrolled than any other profession maybe more so. Also what about medicine allows them to kill. Medicine is the profession that specificaly states in its oath to "do no harm." Furthermore, what is the difference between choosing medicine in their teens and abusing animals in their teens. It is still the same seperation66.176.172.119 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)