Why We Love Serial Killers (3 page)

Jack the Ripper

As noted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its 2005 report titled
Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators
, the name Jack the Ripper has become synonymous with serial murder over the years. This case has spawned many legends and myths concerning serial homicide and the killers who commit them. More than 125 years after his killing spree abruptly ended without his capture, the murders of Jack the Ripper continue to haunt and tantalize the world. In many ways, the Ripper killings are the greatest unsolved “whodunit” mystery of all time. In the 1970s and 1980s the exploits of high-profile serial killers in the US such as the Green River Killer, Ted Bundy, and Jeffrey Dahmer
rekindled public interest in serial murder, which then exploded after the 1991 release of the now classic Hollywood film
The Silence of the Lambs
and its sequels and prequels.

Today, when we hear a television news account of an unidentified serial killer on the loose somewhere, many of us have a mental image of a thirty-something-year-old white, male loner, who preys on unsuspecting, young female strangers. This popular image has been reinforced in the fictional portrayals of serial killers such as “Buffalo Bill” and the “Tooth Fairy” to such an extent that it has become a persistent stereotype in our society. If not entirely untrue, this overly simplistic popular culture image of serial killers is so omnipresent and trite that many of us think we know a lot more about real-life serial killers than we actually do.

The Truth About Serial Killers Is Not So Simple

The reality of serial homicide in the US bears little resemblance to the popular mythology of it that is fueled by law enforcement authorities and the mass media. Throughout this book I attempt to explain and dissect the complex reality of serial homicide and debunk many of the popular myths that surround serial killers. For example, there has been considerable debate among experts over the exact criteria and definition of serial murder. During the past forty years, multiple definitions of serial murder have been used by law enforcement officials, clinicians, academicians, and researchers. While these definitions normally share common elements, they differ on specific requirements such as the number of murders, the killer’s motives, and the temporal aspects of the murders.

Typically, definitions of serial murder specify a certain number of murders, varying from two to ten victims, as noted by the FBI in its 2005 report on serial murder. This quantitative requirement distinguishes a serial murder scenario from other categories of murder, especially single homicide, which is by far the most common act of murder. Most of the definitions also require a period of time between the murders. This pause or break between killings is necessary to distinguish between a mass murder, which is a one-time event, and a serial murder, which has multiple incidents. Moreover, serial murder requires a temporal separation between the different murders which is variably described as
separate occasions
, a
cooling off period
, or an
emotional cooling off period
. I use the term
cooling off period
throughout this book to refer to the temporal requirement.

As explained by Peter Vronsky in his 2004 book
Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters
, the term “serial killer” was probably coined by the late FBI agent and profiler Robert Ressler, who said that he believed the term “stranger killings,” which was frequently used during the mid-twentieth century, was inaccurate because not all victims of serial killers are strangers. Ressler was lecturing at the British police academy at Bramshill, England, in 1974, where he heard the description of some crimes as occurring in series, including rapes, arsons, burglaries, robberies, and murders. Ressler said that the description reminded him of the movie industry term “serial adventures” which referred to short episodic films featuring the likes of Batman and the Lone Ranger that were shown in theaters on Saturday afternoons during the 1930s and 1940s. Each week, youthful matinee audiences were lured back for the next installment in the series by an inconclusive ending known as a “cliffhanger” that left them wanting more. As reported by Vronsky, the FBI agent recalled from his youth that no episode had a satisfactory conclusion and the ending of each one increased rather than decreased the tension in the viewer. Similarly, Ressler believed that the conclusion of every murder increases the tension and desire of a serial killer to commit a more perfect murder in the future—one closer to his/her ideal fantasy. Rather than being satisfied when they murder, serial killers are instead agitated toward repeating their killings in an unending “serial” cycle.

Defining Serial Killing

Perhaps due to the debate among professionals over the exact definition of serial murder, the government actually attempted to formalize it through legislation on one occasion. In 1998, a federal law was passed by the United States Congress, titled Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998 (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 51, Section 1111). This law includes the following definition of serial killings:

The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.

This federal law provides a definition of serial murder but it is limited in its usefulness because it was only designed to establish criteria for
when the FBI could assist local law enforcement agencies with their investigation of serial homicide cases.

At a symposium on serial homicide in 2005, the FBI reduced the minimum number of victims from three to two in its own definition of serial murder.
¹
The FBI did this for its own purposes and to satisfy its own needs—that is, to afford itself greater flexibility and breadth in determining when and how to pursue potential serial murder cases. This certainly makes sense from a law enforcement perspective where the goals are the identification and apprehension of a killer. However, criminal investigation is not the purpose of this book. The focus here is on how and why serial killers become grizzly high-profile celebrities in society. Therefore, I have retained the classic criterion of three or more victims to define serial murder because it more precisely delineates the notorious serial predators that are the subject matter of this book. This position is supported by the acclaimed former FBI profiler, Roy Hazelwood, with whom I corresponded during my research for this book.

In addition to lowering the minimum number of murder victims in 2005, the FBI also eliminated the cooling off period from its list of required serial homicide criteria. Similar to the rationale it used in lowering the number of victims, the FBI argued that the cooling off period is not a useful requirement for the purposes of criminal investigation. However, from a social-psychological perspective, the emotional cooling off period between murders is a key behavioral characteristic that distinguishes the most infamous serial killers from all other murderers. It is central to the research I present in this book, so the cooling off period is included in my definition of serial homicide.

During the cooling off period between murders, a serial killer disappears from the public eye and resumes his or her seemingly normal routine and life. Incredibly, the life of a serial killer during the cooling off period, particularly if he or she is a psychopathic killer, like Ted Bundy, may appear completely normal to the unsuspecting observer. To summarize, given the goals of this book, I employ the following three criteria to define serial homicide:

1.   At least three victims.

2.   The murders take place in separate events, at different times.

3.   The killer experiences an emotional cooling off period between murders.

When you bring up the name of an infamous real-life predator such as Jack the Ripper or Jeffrey Dahmer in conversation with a group of
people, it is clear that serial killers are a very hot topic. Some folks actually become gleeful in their demeanor while discussing them. Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that some of us have a macabre fascination with serial killers for the same reason that many of us are morbidly drawn to stare at a catastrophic automobile accident? Therein lies the central question of this book. Why are so many people, including myself, fascinated by serial killers? Answering this intriguing sociological question and shedding light on serial killer myths, while providing compelling new insights into serial homicide, are the primary objectives of this book.

In order to understand why so many people in society are captivated by serial killers, it is necessary to examine the social agents and processes that promote them. Unlike other books about serial killers which only focus on the behavior of the criminals, this book offers an exploration into the dark nature of society itself and its powerful appetite for the macabre, while also providing new and unique insights into serial murder. The groundbreaking approach in this book provides a penetrating sociological look at the public’s fascination with serial homicide.

Overview of the Book

Why We Love Serial Killers
includes the following key elements:

•   An in-depth examination of serial murder realities versus myths in the US and a comparison of serial killing to other types of multiple homicide, such as mass murder and spree killing.

•   A discussion of antisocial personality disorders, including sociopathy and psychopathy, and an examination of how such conditions are manifested in serial killers.

•   A comprehensive analysis of criminal profiling which is used by law enforcement professionals such as the FBI to identify and apprehend unknown serial predators.

•   An examination of the role of key social agents, including the news and entertainment media, state officials (law enforcement authorities and politicians) and the general public in the construction of the public identity of serial killers.

•   An investigation of important social processes, including crime news reporting, that may help to explain how and why serial killers often become grizzly popular culture celebrities.

•   A compelling examination of the lives of two notorious, incarcerated serial killers, including an analysis of their involvement in the construction of their own public identities, gained through extensive correspondence and personal interview.

•   A fascinating look into the curious and obsessive world of serial killer fans, groupies and collectors of so-called murderabilia—the original artwork and artifacts (including clothing, personal items and weapons) of serial killers.

•   An argument that the sudden appearance of a serial killer on the public stage, driven by massive news media coverage and journalistic hyperbole, can create public anxiety or “anomie” (conflicting or contradictory social norms) when the public is confronted by an alleged super predator that defies all conventional wisdom concerning criminal motivations and behavior.

•   A second argument that the stereotypical representation of serial killers as monsters by law enforcement authorities and the news media reduces anomie or public anxiety by clarifying moral boundaries and defining evil, while also establishing the serial killer as the “other” in society—that is, an aberration of nature that is separate and distinct from decent people.

How Serial Killers Differ From Other Multiple Murderers

As subjects in the mass entertainment media, serial killers seem to pique the curiosity of many people, regardless of whether the image presented is a real criminal such as John Wayne Gacy (“The Killer Clown”) or a fictional character such as Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter. In either case, the image presented is typically biased and far too simplistic in its representation of the personality and behavioral characteristics of the serial killer. Over-simplification and stereotyping by the mass media obscure the true diversity of serial killers and their pathological motivations. Media stereotypes of serial killers prevent the public from fully comprehending the complex needs, desires, and compulsions that drive serial killers to murder innocent strangers. At the same time, however, colorful and entertaining media images of serial killers fuel a desire among the public to understand why serial predators commit their horrible crimes. For some people, the desire to comprehend serial killers and their motivations can even become a form of obsession, as evidenced by the fanatical fans and groupies of serial killers who collect their prison art and mementos from their crimes.

Serial killers are shrouded in mystery and they are frequently the targets of misinformation disseminated by law enforcement officials and the news media. Inaccuracies and exaggeration have led to considerable popular mythology surrounding serial killers. Most notably, serial killers are not the only murderers who claim multiple victims over the course of a criminal career. There are three other significant categories of multiple murderers that warrant some discussion in order to provide clarification. These other categories are mass murderers, spree killers, and mob hit men. I will demonstrate that serial killers differ significantly from other types of multiple murderers. As a reminder and point of reference, a serial killer must have at least three victims and the murders themselves must take place in separate events and at different times. In addition, a serial killer experiences an emotional cooling off period between murders.