That they're super-intelligent.
I've read enough real-life cases of turf wars and bungled investigations, as well as the number who prey on vulnerable segments like runaways, prostitutes or completely random victims that it isn't usually their own sharp wits that stop them from being caught quickly.
I wouldn't say I love or hate them, but did go through a phase where I was a bit morbidly fascinated by them. The most interesting ones for me were those who seemed to maintain relatively normal lives otherwise, but then I wonder how much media myth-making goes into that. For example, people who knew Karla Homolka before she hooked up with Bernardo thought she was a complete whackjob already. Some people were fooled by Ted Bundy (including Ann Rule at the time that she knew him), yet others pegged him as a creep almost immediately.
I always thought people's varied perceptions of a serial killer in their midst would be interesting to explore.
Oh so very much this. The weird romanticism and revisionism of some serial killers, and odd assumptions even law enforcement (many of whom just aren't educated in some areas) make, is irksome as hell. Homolka is one of the more unbelievable real-life examples. At least some intrepid reporter seems to go ferret her out every few years, but that that freak is running free is not a merit badge for society.
The 'serial killers are brilliant, scheming, suave, cool guys' thing is not helpful to anything either.
Hmmmmm. That is something I am going to look at. I've heard that some professionals in the field think that the SK's who are caught are the stupid ones. They're far too interested in the public knowing about it.
The good SK's are the one's who get away with it for years. I heard a radio show about a SK who got away with killing for 66 years.
Plenty of serial killers spend a long time operating before they're caught - that's how they become serial killers. They're not stupid if they get caught, or interested in the public knowing (I don't know where that comes from except extrapolating very particular people like BTK or Zodiac [who wouldn't help that argument]). They may be stupid, as serial killers aren't, television aside, by definition, smarter than the average bear. There are several things at work as to why they get caught - but there are plenty out there not.
I'm at the point where I won't even pick up a novel about a serial killer unless it comes highly recommended by someone whose opinion I trust. The stories are often wildly unrealistic and are becoming even more so as writers try to bring something new to the trope. Unfortunately, too many writers think 'something new' = even more violence, mostly against women, described in gruesome detail. (NB: Among the books I've read. I'm sure I've missed some excellent stories.)
I might pick up another SK novel if it were realistic. That is, showed a plausible SK and something approaching a proper police investigation. It would also have to be written very, very well.
This, except it's the wrongness that puts me off. Same as I can't watch the CSI or endless other similar procedurals that are just ridiculous. The serial killers in fiction are way too often fictitious, created by people whose knowledge comes entirely from other fiction.
oh, I remember only one Serial Killer in my life time and that's the Craig's list one. I was born in 85 and don't remember any news stories about any of the ones during this years.
I think the problem is that society basically writes drug addicts and prostitutes off because they are leading a risky and illegal life. Run Away's get nearly the same treatment because they aren't conforming and based on the age of the run away the police won't take it seriously at all. I guess it must also depend on what state you live in. I live in a state where suicide is taken very seriously and when a friend of my sisters made a fake report that my sister was thinking about doing it, we got the cops and the ambulance and it was just a nightmare to deal with. I had to do it because of reasons. So yeah. I suppose it just depends on where one lives.
Well. From what I've seen on documentaries, most sk's are caught because their tail light was out or something. Ted Bundy was like the seventh name on the police's suspect list when he got pulled over and the cop arrested him for something and then they figured out he was their sk.
The FBI says that there are at least 12 working in every major city and only the smart one's get away with it because bodies are found and either the police think they're separate crimes or, back in the day - 60's maybe??- if the murders were committed in different counties the police wouldn't know because they didn't communicated with each other.
Off the top of my head, I think I can name at least three nationally-famous serial killers who were caught in the past, I dunno, 20 years? I think Dahmer may be just outside that cutoff, but his fame is such that I can't imagine anyone even remotely interested in the topic missing him.
I have no idea where you're from, but that's not in any way a state-by-state thing. Every police department in the land takes suicide seriously.
Runaways aren't not taken seriously - there just are few resources police can put into tracking people close to adulthood who voluntarily take off and could be god knows where. They do what they can. Young kids who run away get more resources thrown at them.
hence why you look at the victims and what connection is between them because sometimes Sk's do have patterns. not all the time. But most of the time.
They have patterns all the time. The patterns are not necessarily about or visible in the victims or victim pool, or to outsiders.