jwillx
04-12-2008, 03:39 PM
I think MINOR offenses should be treated as important clues when investigating a crime supposed to be that of a serial killer.
This is explained, for example, in the article on child-killer Robert Black, Chapter 11 "Recriminations". There, the article author muses, "The question is really why Black was not identified as a suspect at any stage ... However, when we look at research done into the backgrounds of serial killers we see that if they have any past convictions they are hardly ever serious and usually not sexual. ".
Right -- obvious indeed, although the police in this case thought they had a serial killer BUT only looked into suspects with prior serious convictions.
Why obvious? A serious offense would have put the suspect in jail for a long time and later made him or her a prime suspect in the next killing! Any cop around would recall a prior serious conviction. A SERIAL killer has to be able to sneak by suspicion long enough to kill a few more; otherwise, the activities would be terminated by an arrest before they could become SERIAL killing!
This is explained, for example, in the article on child-killer Robert Black, Chapter 11 "Recriminations". There, the article author muses, "The question is really why Black was not identified as a suspect at any stage ... However, when we look at research done into the backgrounds of serial killers we see that if they have any past convictions they are hardly ever serious and usually not sexual. ".
Right -- obvious indeed, although the police in this case thought they had a serial killer BUT only looked into suspects with prior serious convictions.
Why obvious? A serious offense would have put the suspect in jail for a long time and later made him or her a prime suspect in the next killing! Any cop around would recall a prior serious conviction. A SERIAL killer has to be able to sneak by suspicion long enough to kill a few more; otherwise, the activities would be terminated by an arrest before they could become SERIAL killing!