Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry :) Some of this was answered in the post I did to Steve
concerning Sk's and such so I won't repeat myself here :) No use boring
the daylights out of everyone (G).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >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.
I have seen some looking into this extra chromosome, and it does provide
some interest at least I am interested in this aspect, the possibility
is that may be the reason for some of them, I agree not all but some.
Yet we have to wait further medical evidence on this. I'm trying to
remember but didn't Gacy have this? I vaguely remember a slight flurry
of excitement and media attention concerning a discovery about his
brain, it might have been something to do with an abnormality in his
brain though. I just can't quite remember though.
> 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
I agree it's rare a SK will admit his guilt, usually they won't until
the end, as Bundy finally did among others. They have to much fun
playing the game with the LE people. Not all SK's will always fit the
exact profile, there is always going to be those who are different, as
Shawcross was.
> >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.
I listed the various things to be considered a SK in another post.
> >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.
There is a definition for SK's some tend to put mass killers with SK's
it's a common mistake, but a SK is a special breed on to its self. The
definition I supplied is the ones most commonly used. The term SK I
wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't in the dictionary yet, it's not a old
term but one that Robert K. Ressler started when he was with the FBI.
Some disagree he is the one that coined the phrase, yet most tend to
credit him with it.
> >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.
Ted is not a SK, for a couple of reasons, his intended victims, were
people he knew or had some sort of relationship with in the past, yes
some of the victims were not known to him, but the only reason that
happened is the packages were picked up them instead of the intended. He
was out for revenge and to get back at those he felt slighted him, he
was not killing for pleasure or the sort, he also did not do a one on
one killing as a SK does. A SK is there doing the torture/killing
themselves Ted was not. He himself made a new category in the criminal
files as the unabomber.
> >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.
Most of the SK's I have looked into are sexually sadistic killers. The
most well known ones were. Wayne Williams was extraordinary himself,
first off for being black, that is rare, and second he had a hatred for
his own race.
> 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.
I agree he is a SK, I know he denies it, yet I with you was convinced on
the scientific evidence in the case.
> Understanding a phenomenon requires that one look at the edges and >find dividing
>lines as well as looking for commonality.
I understand what your saying :) Yet we have to be careful not to
include people into a category they don't belong to and mixing up the
equation. Yet we should never close our minds in this field to anything,
as we have learned people are capable of all different sorts of evils.
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
