America's first serial killers-the Harps brothers

Don't read if you are squeamish...

http://ks.essortment.com/biogrpahyserial_runy.htm

WoW!! I had never heard of them before!! I read the whole article and just wow at all the people murdered by them and how it was done!!!

Originally posted by Tweeter
WoW!! I had never heard of them before!! I read the whole article and just wow at all the people murdered by them and how it was done!!!

Yes, amazing, isn't it? Anyone and everyone that got in their way, or irritated them...

IMO

I found something in that article and it peaked my interest!! The article talks about the "brothers" being caught, then escaping. The "wives" were left to fend for themselves, and were arrested. It states once they were released they met up with their "husbands". It completely boggles my mind if these men were that sick and twisted, and these women were free from them, why go back?!?!?
Thanks for posting this link Challenger!! I'm gonna go google and read more about this!!

Originally posted by Tweeter
I found something in that article and it peaked my interest!! The article talks about the "brothers" being caught, then escaping. The "wives" were left to fend for themselves, and were arrested. It states once they were released they met up with their "husbands". It completely boggles my mind if these men were that sick and twisted, and these women were free from them, why go back?!?!?
Thanks for posting this link Challenger!! I'm gonna go google and read more about this!!

YW.

I don't think women escaped so easily from bad marriages in those days. Where would they go, and how would they live? Maybe too, they were afraid those guys would find them and kill them.

If you find any more on this item, please post links, I'd love to read more. Thanks!

Hiya Challenger!! I found this link which is about the area and how it was even before the Harps Brothers showed up, and of course during the time the Harps were there. I found it interesting, had a big more info on a few of the murders as well. The Harps come into play about the middle of the aricle.
Hell In Ohio

This was actually had an explanation as to how Little Harp met his doom
Crime Magazine

And this one I thought was the best site for info, very detailed and even explains that the two "wives" were hung at the end and their heads were on display as well.
Frontier Justice

Thanks again Challenger!! I find this story simply fascinating and just udderly amazing!!

Originally posted by Tweeter
Hiya Challenger!! I found this link which is about the area and how it was even before the Harps Brothers showed up, and of course during the time the Harps were there. I found it interesting, had a big more info on a few of the murders as well. The Harps come into play about the middle of the aricle.
Hell In Ohio

This was actually had an explanation as to how Little Harp met his doom
Crime Magazine

And this one I thought was the best site for info, very detailed and even explains that the two "wives" were hung at the end and their heads were on display as well.
Frontier Justice

Thanks again Challenger!! I find this story simply fascinating and just udderly amazing!!

Wow! Great research, thank you so much.

Now I'm wondering how these guys got to be so brutal. Must have had a curious childhood...

Thanks, Tweeter.

This seems to be more of a "spree" type killing rather than a series of murders with a sexual element to it. Where is the "cooling off" period? That os essential to the serial killer. This just seems to be two really f****d up guys who got thrills out of killing.

The first "known" serial killers were Gilles de Rais (Joan of Arc's front man in battle) & Elizabeth, the countess of Bathory. (She was royalty) Their death tolls each seem to go into the hundreds! Also, some historians believe that werewofl & vampire legends originated from actual serial murders, mutilation etc was too "human" so it would seem that only an animal could have done that.......

[Cinnared]

Originally posted by lucielle
This seems to be more of a "spree" type killing rather than a series of murders with a sexual element to it. Where is the "cooling off" period? That os essential to the serial killer. This just seems to be two really f****d up guys who got thrills out of killing.

The first "known" serial killers were Gilles de Rais (Joan of Arc's front man in battle) & Elizabeth, the countess of Bathory. (She was royalty) Their death tolls each seem to go into the hundreds! Also, some historians believe that werewofl & vampire legends originated from actual serial murders, mutilation etc was too "human" so it would seem that only an animal could have done that.......

>>

usually,spree killers have no cooling off period.

Originally posted by Cinnared
>>

usually,spree killers have no cooling off period.

Nope, mass murdereres traditionally don't have a cooling off period. SPree killer, such as the Snipers or Andrew Cunanen DO have a cooling off period. Not as much as a serial killer does, but they certainly do not barracade themselves in a bell tower & proceed to shoot. Many try for as long as they can to evade capture, some killing themselves before it is all over, some not.

[packy]

Originally posted by Challenger2
Don't read if you are squeamish...

http://ks.essortment.com/biogrpahyserial_runy.htm

Not surprised. You do have to wonder about how they became so callous and cold.

Interesting that some of these places are named for these people and most people are not even aware of it.

[disneyland]

Originally posted by lucielle


Nope, mass murdereres traditionally don't have a cooling off period. SPree killer, such as the Snipers or Andrew Cunanen DO have a cooling off period. Not as much as a serial killer does, but they certainly do not barracade themselves in a bell tower & proceed to shoot. Many try for as long as they can to evade capture, some killing themselves before it is all over, some not.

I think it depends on who you ask. But according to the Crime Classification Manual, Spree Killers do NOT have a cooling off period.

Andrew Cunanan, like Ted Bundy, lost it by the end going from Serial to Spree.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a spree killing as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders." Serial killers are different in that they have cooling off periods between attacks, while mass murderers typically stick to one location.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer

or

# Although the terms "serial killer" and "mass murderer" are often used synonymously, criminologists distinguish the two. The following distinctions are commonly made: A serial killer is one who commits a number of murders over a long period of time, with the killings separated by often long periods of apparent normalcy.
# A mass murderer, on the other hand, is an individual who kills several people in a single event.
# A spree killer kills in a series of closely connected events.

http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/serial.htm

Originally posted by disneyland


I think it depends on who you ask. But according to the Crime Classification Manual, Spree Killers do NOT have a cooling off period.

Andrew Cunanan, like Ted Bundy, lost it by the end going from Serial to Spree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer

or http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/serial.htm

Andrew Cunanon was a different sort......he was imo a serial killer, but he did morph at the end. And Ted Bundy did the same, yet he was different in the fact that he was a TRUE serial murderer. His murders psanned over years, not just months like Cunano. But HE lost it in the end as well. Do you think maybe they realized the loss of control? Maybe that made them spiral out of control?

One thing I have noticed int he last few years is that most of the original "facts" and "stats" that we had on those types of killer are not correct. Look at Gary Ridgway & Dennis Radar for example. Both killed years ago, but then "stopped." (Not stopped altogether, but they certainly were not killing the way that they had done originally) One of the "rules" of serial murder is that these guys cannot stop on their own, they are uncontrollable. They must be killed, kill themselves, be institutionalized, or they must be imprisoned. Now we know that THAT is not true. These guys "stopped" on their own, which means that most of the unsolved serial crimes could be the same. The Zodiac, Jack the Ripper, the Cleveland Torso murders, etc. They could have definitely just gotten older, had families (isn't that sick?) and settled down. (As much as these types do) My own personal opinion is that it is more tied to sex drive than anything. Most serial killers are men, most men are in their peak sex drive in their mid 20/early 30's, therefore when their sex drive wears off, maybe that "urge" or addiction wears off. ?????
I know it is kinda far out there, but who knows?

According to Roger DePue, retired chief of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit, "many" serial killers use murder as a means of relieving stress. He cited David Berkowitz as telling him that the pressure would build, and it was relieved only by another murder.

I think the subjects of this thread would fall into that category.

JMO

Originally posted by lucielle


Andrew Cunanon was a different sort......he was imo a serial killer, but he did morph at the end. And Ted Bundy did the same, yet he was different in the fact that he was a TRUE serial murderer. His murders psanned over years, not just months like Cunano. But HE lost it in the end as well. Do you think maybe they realized the loss of control? Maybe that made them spiral out of control?

One thing I have noticed int he last few years is that most of the original "facts" and "stats" that we had on those types of killer are not correct. Look at Gary Ridgway & Dennis Radar for example. Both killed years ago, but then "stopped." (Not stopped altogether, but they certainly were not killing the way that they had done originally) One of the "rules" of serial murder is that these guys cannot stop on their own, they are uncontrollable. They must be killed, kill themselves, be institutionalized, or they must be imprisoned. Now we know that THAT is not true. These guys "stopped" on their own, which means that most of the unsolved serial crimes could be the same. The Zodiac, Jack the Ripper, the Cleveland Torso murders, etc. They could have definitely just gotten older, had families (isn't that sick?) and settled down. (As much as these types do) My own personal opinion is that it is more tied to sex drive than anything. Most serial killers are men, most men are in their peak sex drive in their mid 20/early 30's, therefore when their sex drive wears off, maybe that "urge" or addiction wears off. ?????
I know it is kinda far out there, but who knows?

Interesting thoughts, Lucielle. According to DePue, killers like Bundy lose control, and the increased pressure from LE to find them eventually sends them into a "frenzy". DePue calls it a "disintegration of the soul", not unlike Joseph Duncan and Cunanan.

As for stopping, yes, some do, and sometimes their interest once again is sparked by some event related to their crimes; ie; BTK, who's interest was stimulated by a newspaper article detailing his crimes, and the fact that his crimes had never been solved.

I believe in BTK's case, the sense of power in not being caught enhanced his sense of control, rather than resulting in a "frenzy", or "disintegration".

There are no convenient compartments for serial killers, imo, their motives are individual and personal. I deduced that from all I have read on this subject.

JMO

Originally posted by Challenger2
Interesting thoughts, Lucielle. According to DePue, killers like Bundy lose control, and the increased pressure from LE to find them eventually sends them into a "frenzy". DePue calls it a "disintegration of the soul", not unlike Joseph Duncan and Cunanan.

As for stopping, yes, some do, and sometimes their interest once again is sparked by some event related to their crimes; ie; BTK, who's interest was stimulated by a newspaper article detailing his crimes, and the fact that his crimes had never been solved.

I believe in BTK's case, the sense of power in not being caught enhanced his sense of control, rather than resulting in a "frenzy", or "disintegration".

There are no convenient compartments for serial killers, imo, their motives are individual and personal. I deduced that from all I have read on this subject.

JMO

These guys have always fascinated me! I started reading up on serial murders when I was 12 years old! (I promise I am not weird) The thing that gets me is the "why?" WHat in the wordl makes a persoin do what they do and why? Is it nature or nurture? Personally, I think both have a BIG role. Can a psychopath be curbed from murderous tendencies if they are spared abuse or neglect in childhood?

Originally posted by lucielle


These guys have always fascinated me! I started reading up on serial murders when I was 12 years old! (I promise I am not weird) The thing that gets me is the "why?" WHat in the wordl makes a persoin do what they do and why? Is it nature or nurture? Personally, I think both have a BIG role. Can a psychopath be curbed from murderous tendencies if they are spared abuse or neglect in childhood?

Yes, I'm fascinated by the subject, too, and I don't think we're alone.

According to Roger DePue and Robert Ressler, it is "nurture". The problem in nailing that as a valid theory is that the parents, relatives, etc., refuse to be interviewed, and deny anything untoward happened in childhood.
IMO

Originally posted by lucielle


These guys have always fascinated me! I started reading up on serial murders when I was 12 years old! (I promise I am not weird) The thing that gets me is the "why?" WHat in the wordl makes a persoin do what they do and why? Is it nature or nurture? Personally, I think both have a BIG role. Can a psychopath be curbed from murderous tendencies if they are spared abuse or neglect in childhood?

Here's Henry Lee Lucas. It's not hard to believe that "nurture" (or lack thereof) was the cause, imo.

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/killers/lucas.html

Originally posted by Challenger2
Here's Henry Lee Lucas. It's not hard to believe that "nurture" (or lack thereof) was the cause, imo.

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/killers/lucas.html

Yes, Lucas! Oh my! I dont believe htat he killed the numbe rhe says he did, though!

Who didn't have the history of abuse? (Or known history at least)

Ted Bundy--although there are discrepancies as to if his grandfather may have abused him or was just a real a** hole.

Jeffrey Dahmer, he seemed to have a good childhood--although his parents marriage seemed to be a problem. WHo was the "Happy Face Killer?" I can't remember his name...oh Keith Jesperson. He seemed to have had a good childhood.......

Originally posted by lucielle


These guys have always fascinated me! I started reading up on serial murders when I was 12 years old! (I promise I am not weird) The thing that gets me is the "why?" WHat in the wordl makes a persoin do what they do and why? Is it nature or nurture? Personally, I think both have a BIG role. Can a psychopath be curbed from murderous tendencies if they are spared abuse or neglect in childhood?

Here's an interesting site:

http://www.karisable.com/crserial.htm

[Common Childhood Behavior Traits]

*A majority of serial killers have a history of sexual and physical abuse during childhood.

*In half of the serial killers families, the biological father had left before the child was 12 years old. In the cases where the father didn't leave, he was domineering and abusive.

Originally posted by Challenger2
Here's an interesting site:

http://www.karisable.com/crserial.htm

[Common Childhood Behavior Traits]

*A majority of serial killers have a history of sexual and physical abuse during childhood.

*In half of the serial killers families, the biological father had left before the child was 12 years old. In the cases where the father didn't leave, he was domineering and abusive.

Karisable is a good site........I could stay on there all day long.

Curious as ro your opinion on the Boston Strangler---do you think DeSalvo was the strangler?

Also, thoughts on Wayne Williams---guilty or innocent?

Originally posted by lucielle


Karisable is a good site........I could stay on there all day long.

Curious as ro your opinion on the Boston Strangler---do you think DeSalvo was the strangler?

Also, thoughts on Wayne Williams---guilty or innocent?

I haven't looked at the Boston Strangler.

I think Wayne Williams is guilty. His violent outburst in the courtroom during his testimony speaks of a loss of control, and his presence at the bridge where a victim's body was found leave no doubt in my mind.

JMO

Originally posted by Challenger2
I haven't looked at the Boston Strangler.

I think Wayne Williams is guilty. His violent outburst in the courtroom during his testimony speaks of a loss of control, and his presence at the bridge where a victim's body was found leave no doubt in my mind.

JMO

The only thing I question about Williams is the victims---the number of them and the way they grouped them together. I don't think he killed all of those victims---I certainly think it possible he wa railroaded on some. And yes, the bridge! How can he ever get over htat one? He has never given a go dexplanation as to why he was there. I just thought it interesting becuase they are re-opening the cases.


You should read a few books on the Strangler. My personal opinion now is that he DID not commit the murders. In fact, on the last victim, Mary Sullivan, the DNA they tested was not DeSalvos DNA. Furhtermore much of his confession was wrong--way wrong. It also seemed he was coached to some of the details.......