Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Kathy and Terry:
Wouldn't anyone who kills, no matter what the reason, a "series" of
people be consider a serial killer. Be it revenge, sexual, or
otherwise. Just wondering. :)
Sue
>
> Hi Kathy,
>
> >As I said before I am by far not a expert on SK's I do know a bit about
> >them though...
>
> Only a fool would question that. :-}
>
> >The extra Chromosome as you are discussing below may be a key into the
> >cause of SK's, it's just not known yet. It would be nice if we could
> >find out what causes it, and hopefully they can pin down some definite
> >medical reasons.
>
> Understand the extra chromosome is still quite controversial and evidence is
> mixed. In the particular case of Shawcross it seemed even less implicated
> than the other apparent genetic defect which seemed to be ignored except in
> one dark corner. I know of no evidence that all serial killers share any
> particular genetic or environmental defect though many things are quite common.
>
> Shawcross varied from the profile of most serial killers in numerous ways.
> This monster was really odd. Examples: His first killings were those of a
> pedophile. He would not have been expected to transfer his killings to
> adult women. He was capable of taking responsibility for his actions rather
> than blaming the victim
>
> >Concerning Hoffman I agree he is not a SK, more of a exterminator out
> >for revenge is what it looks like to me...
>
> Ummm - I looked up serial killer in a dictionary without success.
>
> >a SK has a very specific profile,
>
> Aren't you turning things upside down, Kathy? If we take the profile of all
> serial killers we will no doubt get common characteristics of many. But
> that does not define serial killers.
>
> >in that it's rare they will know their victims, and they get
> >sexual gratification from the torture of their victims.
>
> Is Ted Kaczynski then not a serial killer? Sexual gratification is a
> nebulous concept itself. It is arguable whether serial killers are simply
> looking for sex or the sex is a means of gratifying an even more powerful
> lust, e.g. that for power. I am sure some will argue Ted Kaczynski got a
> sexual thrill from his bombings.
>
> >Revenge at a victim is not something in the psych of a SK, now sometimes
> >there is someone who the victims will represent, mother or grandmother, and
> >that is how they will pick their victims.
>
> Seems to me revenge is an even more obvious motive of serial killing than
> sexual thrills. And Wayne Williams' murky motivation seems furthest removed
> from all others I know of.
>
> I have never heard anyone deny Wayne Williams was a serial killer if you
> assume his guilt (as I do). The fiber evidence is quite convincing IMO.
>
> Understanding a phenomenon requires that one look at the edges and find
> dividing lines as well as looking for commonality.
> Best, Terry
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
