Obsessed with True Crime discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archive
>
Why do many of us find serial killers more interesting than other murderers?
date
newest »
newest »
It is instilled in human nature to be curious about the world around us and other human beings, a trait that machines will never be able to replace.
The media treat SKs as fundamentally different from all others, and somehow better. TV shows for instance would have you think that profiling of crime scenes is only done in SK cases, which isn't true at all. Movies tend to portray SKs as having some special kink that others don't have, which also isn't usually true.Of course the search for a killer who has no connection to his victim is a lot more challenging and interesting to read about. Especially when there's no obvious signature, or several of them that could imply multiple killers or a really interesting singleton, the kind you see so often in South Africa for instance. The historical context of the crimes changes the whole interpretation of the evidence, the victimology, and whether anyone is even aware that there is an SK on the loose.
"Husband kills wife so he can be with his girlfriend or collect insurance $$" is just a lot less intriguing. And you rarely see a SUPERSLEUTH being called in to clear the case. Even if the cop involved is a SUPERSLEUTH, that title won't come from solving a household intra-familial murder. It'll come when he or she tracks down an SK.
And when it comes to that, you know, some serial killers are handed to you on a platter. Guys like Marty Graham or Ian Brady. The police are called in and all the evidence is there, including clear proof of who did it. The lead investigator still gets the title SUPERSLEUTH even though there was no SUPERSLEUTHING involved. It was a ready-made, slam-dunk, but high-profile case that sheds glory the way a pile of used core rods sheds radiation.
To me, a killer who seems to have a motive for murdering multiple times over a span of time is more difficult to "understand" (if understanding is ever possible) and holds more interest for me, because I seek more insight into these convoluted motives. Getting input from different authors helps me begin to fathom these nebulous motivations, whereas a single crime of passion, (even one with multiple victims killed on the same occasion) or one motivated by avarice, etc. can be some how understood, even if I can't conceive of myself ever doing something like it. Does that make any sense to group members?
I agree Hari, anyone can snap and kill someone but serial killers are a whole different species.
Serial killers are 'usually' more interesting, to me, because of the huge disparity between their 'two halves'. Take Ted Bundy, for instance, he was a good looking, intelligent, charming man most of the time, and yet he was able to carry out abductions, and murders, without any hesitation.Another similarly interesting one is Russell Williams. He was the Commander of CFB Trenton, Canada's largest military airbase, and had a hideous dark side that made him commit break-ins, rape, and murder.
Granted there are serial killers who are far less interesting, due to lack of intelligence, etc.
For me, I got interested in true crime because I'm interested in what goes on inside the head of such people. To try to learn how they "went 'round the bend". And serial killers just seem to be more 'round the bend than all the others.
I have seen a killer in person and I have met many devious individuals over the years. We, all have a dark side, but, circumstance plays a large part in our actions. Yes, Bundy, was your typical two sided personality, charm personified.But, I also saw a prisoner, who was broken in every sense of the word.
It makes you more perceptive.
@ Hari, I agree, these sort of killers are a rarity and show an addictive side to their personality.
That combination of functional and dangerous is hard to resist.
Fishface wrote: "That combination of functional and dangerous is hard to resist."Absolutely.
Of course, again, there are the nonfunctional ones, like Marty Graham.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
For myself, I think it is because their murders are more intriguing ... like a fiction thriller. The killer who seems so average, or sometimes charming, during their 'normal' times ... then carries out horrendous murders like some mythological demon ... then flips back to 'nice guy/gal' ... over and over again.
Whereas, the killers who just grab a gun, and shoot random people, over a period of time ... "I don't know. I just wanted to shoot him." ... are a bit boring, or less interesting.
What do all of you think?