Do post mortem mutilators typically communicate with the police?

[Abby Normal]

Seems to me in my brief knowledge of serial killers that post mortem mutilator serial killers dont typically write letters to the police/press. it seems to be more of the characteristic of thrill killers/mission killers like Zodiac, Unabomber and Son of Sam etc.

[B]Does anyone know of any serial killers who are in more in the lust killer, post mortem mutilator/necro serial killers (like Dahmer, Bundy, Green River, Gein, Brudos, Kemper)that wrote letters to the police/press?

BTK is the only one that comes to mind but he seemed to be less of a post mortem kind and more of a torture fetish(rope/strangulation) kind. As in he got off more on the act of strangling/aphyxiation then doing anything directly with the body after death.

I am inclined to think that the Ripper more than likely wrote the GSG and that either the Dear Boss or From hell letter was at least a 50/50 chance of coming from the Ripper. But if they did it does not seem typical of behavior that comes from the type of serial killer the ripper was.

Thoughts/comments?

[kensei]

If I'm not mistaken I seem to recall that Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, wrote just one letter to the authorities at some point. There is also the Yosemite Killer, Cary Stayner, who sent directions to the FBI as to where to find the body of one of his victims, along with the taunting line "We had fun with this one." And he was definitely a mutilator, though not strictly a post-mortem one. He burned two dead bodies (strangled) in the trunk of a car, slashed the throat of the victim he referenced in the letter while she was alive, and beheaded another while she was alive.

[sdreid]

Off the top of my head, there was a letter from someone claiming to be the Cleveland Torso Slayer but was it really? His dissections were a form of mutilation but may have been more for the convenience of transportation than anything else so not a direct comparison to JtR even if the letter was real.

There aren't many postmortem mutilation serial killers who write letters but there aren't many serial killers who write letters nor serial killers who are postmortem mutilators.

[Bridewell]

Does anyone know of any serial killers who are in more in the lust killer, post mortem mutilator/necro serial killers (like Dahmer, Bundy, Green River, Gein, Brudos, Kemper)that wrote letters to the police/press?

Peter Kuerten the Dusseldorf Ripper?

[Errata]

It isn't typical for post mortem mutilators to seek attention, but there isn't anything about the act of mutilation that requires a killer to stay under the radar. Basically serial killers, as with most people, concentrate on a single aspect of any experience. I used to do theater, and there's lots to enjoy about being in a play. But if there wasn't applause, I wouldn't do it. Not that I don't enjoy the rehearsal process, the performing, etc. But I would do other things with that time if there wasn't a chance of a standing ovation.

Serial killers like Zodiac, Son of Sam, Unabomber are different because their focus is divided. If all they wanted was the attention, they could make up murders, or claim crimes as their own that they didn't commit, do any number of outrageous things. But they actually kill as well. So both aspects are important. They get something out of the act, and then out of the terror the act causes. Now for these guys, the attention was more important than the kill. And we know this because none of them made sure they killed all their victims, and some victims of all three survived. If ending a life was paramount, that would not be the case.

Mutilators are also different, for the same reason. Their focus is divided. The kill is important, and the mutilation is important. The one shining exception of course being Ed Gein. Mutilation murders are ritualistic, and I can see why a killer would have a problem ritualizing the mutilation but not the death. And while mutilators have had victims survive, it is incredibly rare. Whether these guys are more focused on the kill or on the mutilation almost doesn't matter. Killing is necessary for the mutilation to take place, or to dispose of a mutilated victim. Death is a requirement, not simply a preference.

It's hard to think that someone could be successful with a triply split focus. Especially due to the ritualistic component of mutilation. It's very personal, what they do. Even with the benefit of distance and time from the kill, mutilators tend to be reluctant to expose something so personal to the public. Sort of how people brag about their sex lives, but they don't talk about their feelings about their sex life. It's private. But clearly these guys are operating with damaged filters so just because the tendency is to protect that which is personal doesn't mean they won't publicize it in order to bask in the terror of the public.

As best I can tell, the mutilating serial killers with their intensely personal rituals that they know are unacceptable are the serial killers most invested in not getting caught. Son of Sam couldn't win unless he was identified. Zodiac put more thought into his codes than he did his crimes. Hell, Kemper turned himself in. Any number of serial killers seem philosophical about getting caught, many simply wishing they had been killed by police. Jeffrey Dahmer was terrified of getting caught. Ted Bundy fought like hell against capture. So if it is true that mutilators are the most invested in not getting caught, publicity seeking would seem counter intuitive. But again, it's not like we're talking about the most rational of minds, so it's not out of the question. I would expect however that anyone split three ways like that would screw up pretty early on in the process. Probably early enough that they don't actually qualify as serial killers.

[RivkahChaya]

Errata, I think I what you're getting at, if I may be so presumptuous.

Some killers are terrorists. Some are essentially rapists, with death or corpse fetishes that often go beyond necrophilia, to eating parts of bodies, or keeping bones as trophies, or extreme sadists, who aren't satisfied with S/M role-playing, and whose tortures usually lead to the victim's death, or who just don't care about the victim, and care about not getting caught, so they dispatch them at the end.

Some may be both, particularly if they get off on the panic they create.

If I'm not mistaken I seem to recall that Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, wrote just one letter to the authorities at some point. There is also the Yosemite Killer, Cary Stayner, who sent directions to the FBI as to where to find the body of one of his victims, along with the taunting line "We had fun with this one." And he was definitely a mutilator, though not strictly a post-mortem one. He burned two dead bodies (strangled) in the trunk of a car, slashed the throat of the victim he referenced in the letter while she was alive, and beheaded another while she was alive.

BTK stated in interviews that he wanted to be a famous serial killer, so that's why he wrote to the police, and why he gave himself a nickname. That's about as twisted as it gets, and I'd have to call him a terrorist; Cary Stayner is a bit of an enigma, but he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and even earlier with ADHD. He'd been prescribed medicine, but had been off it when he committed the murders. He may have written to the police during a full-manic episode, when people often feel invincible, may in a sense not have been the same person who committed the murders (I am in no way suggesting a dissociation, or a "split-personality," just a very drastic sort of mood swing that would have made him seem like a different people, even to those who knew him well).

The Zodiac was definitely a terrorist, who often had no physical contact with his victims. Ted Bundy, whether he actually raped his victims or not chose them because they resembled a woman he was angry at, for dumping him. He was seeking the same kind of power reassurance as a power-reassurance rapist. Killing a woman is an even more extreme way of taking control of her, and humiliating her. Bundy worked to elude the police, and moved around jurisdictions a lot. He never tried to communication with them. He also went sniveling to the electric chair. (I don't believe in capital punishment, but I still enjoy the irony of that. John Wayne Gacy did it too.)

[Errata]

Errata, I think I what you're getting at, if I may be so presumptuous.

Some killers are terrorists. Some are essentially rapists, with death or corpse fetishes that often go beyond necrophilia, to eating parts of bodies, or keeping bones as trophies, or extreme sadists, who aren't satisfied with S/M role-playing, and whose tortures usually lead to the victim's death, or who just don't care about the victim, and care about not getting caught, so they dispatch them at the end.

Some may be both, particularly if they get off on the panic they create.

It's kind of like basketball. You can have shooters, you can have movers, you can have defense masters, but you never see a guy who is spectacular at all three. There's no inherent reason that there aren't people who can be spectacular at all three, it's just about what a person wants to concentrate on. Michael Jordan could put a ball in the basket, but his passing was atrocious and frankly, the man committed more traveling fouls that anyone in the history of man. People were just too mesmerized to call him on it. Isiah Thomas could move a ball like nobodies business, but hardly the best shooter out there. My old idol Kareem Abdul Jabbar was a positive genius when it came to not letting an opponent get a shot off but not really a sharer. Magic Johnson is one of the best all around players ever, but while he is certainly famous and hall of fame material, he has never been considered the best at any part of the game.

Serial killers are like stars. Which is an odd thing to say, but I mean it in two ways. First off, I mean statistically. I used to be an actor, and as it happens 1 in 1000 actors will work enough to support themselves solely by acting. Literally just making a living. And a person is ten times less likely to achieve any kind of recognition, and the odds of becoming a star of stage or screen is less likely than getting hit by lightening. I imagine the numbers are similar for sports, writers, artists, etc. So these people are rare. As are serial killers. The second way serial killers are like stars is that they have some serious focus. These are not people who half-ass their way through. It's something they put all of their energy into, something that requires all of their time, something they wrap their lives around. It why there are rarely good all around players who are highly ranked in all areas. It's why serial killers typically cannot keep up with their normal lives while killing. The lose their jobs, they become itinerant, they lose their relationships, etc. All of their focus is on creating the fantasy. And it's rare for the the fantasy to be very multifaceted. These just aren't people who split focus well.

And it may be a human brain thing. The more important something is, the more single minded it is. If a truck is about to squash you, very few people can split focus and say to themselves "Holy crap I have to get out of the way" AND "I need to get the license plate number of that truck". Everybody focuses on getting out of the way, but not a lot of people at all retain the focus to be a good witness and get the tag numbers. If you are late to work, you're focus is on getting to work, and if that means you are impatient and yell at your wife, cut people off, even disobey traffic laws, so be it. You are single mindedly pursuing the goal of getting to work quickly. Things that are important to us that also create an emotional reaction makes us slaves to those goals. They are more important that any social convention, any nicety, any concept of right and wrong. Fear is a great creator of single minded intensity. So is lust, hurt, need, anger, acclaim and outrage. And it's complicated, because if you are hurt, you are likely also angry and outraged. But the voice in your head is saying " I am in pain." not "I am in pain, and I am angry, and outraged, and maybe a little hungry...". Despite the presence of other potential motivators, we really just focus on one. I can't see why serial killers would be any different. Despite other things that could certainly contribute to their state, they really only focus on one. Simply because the ability to split intense focus is pretty rare.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for the interesting responses.

I would think that the ripper being a post mortem serial killer type would point to the writings (letters and possibly the GSG) being not from the killer.

Either that or they were (or at least one of them) and the ripper was highly atypical, even for a serial killer.

[Stephen Lee]

I'd probably agree Abby. These type of serial killers don't like to be caught. I always think they are ashamed in a way. Bundy would talk (usualy in a third person way) about his crimes, except about necrophelia.
They wont like talking about that kind of stuff because they may be ashamed, or like to keep that fantasy to themselves. Either way I doubt they'd like to communicate to the police or newspapers about it, or anything else.

The one possible exception may be the 'from hell' letter. It's interesting that he doesn't sign it jtr. Was he trying to distance himself from that name? It's possible things were getting a bit hot for him around that time, hence the gap between September and November. Maybe the vigilance committee were doing too good a job for his liking?
I only give it a sight chance, but it's the only letter I give any credence to.

[Abby Normal]

I'd probably agree Abby. These type of serial killers don't like to be caught. I always think they are ashamed in a way. Bundy would talk (usualy in a third person way) about his crimes, except about necrophelia.
They wont like talking about that kind of stuff because they may be ashamed, or like to keep that fantasy to themselves. Either way I doubt they'd like to communicate to the police or newspapers about it, or anything else.

The one possible exception may be the 'from hell' letter. It's interesting that he doesn't sign it jtr. Was he trying to distance himself from that name? It's possible things were getting a bit hot for him around that time, hence the gap between September and November. Maybe the vigilance committee were doing too good a job for his liking?
I only give it a sight chance, but it's the only letter I give any credence to.

Hi SL
Thanks for the response. Sending letters and/or communicating to the police and press just does not seem to be part of their behavior. One because, as you say, they really don't want to get caught or talk about it and two because it just does not seem to be part of what gets them off.

Per from hell letter. I have never bought the idea that a human kidney would be relatively easy to get a hold of even for a medical person. And again as you say, the fact that he does not sign it JtR, when the majority of other hoax letters were, lends to its credence IMHO.

[Ausgirl]

Elizabeth Short's killer sent a taunting letter to the police, with some of her belongings.

Ed Kemper took it one step further and actually made drinking buddies of the local PD.

I don't think it's at all accurate to say that post-mortem mutilators don't communicate with police, when clearly there are those among them who do.

So to me it makes more sense to say that -some- mutilators communicate with police, and others don't.

I do think JtR enjoyed a 'game' of sorts with police, being that the murders were mostly committed within a stone's throw of regularly-walked police beats, in an atmosphere that was pretty far from isolated and may have even had him missing being caught by gnat's whisker - all very high-risk behaviour.

So in my mind, it's not a stretch from there to suppose taunting letters might be quite in keeping with the above character.

[Michael W Richards]

Is there any distinction between... lets say a dismemberer and a post mortem mutilator? I don't see why there should be myself but perhaps others disagree with that perspective. The rationale used by the killer is really what needs to be determined, and if that's so, then we have to consider that some serial mutilators perform those acts attempting to more handily dispose of the body...or to hide it.

Which seems to indicate that at least in some of the post mortem mutilation cases that occur are contrived and calculated acts.

Funny...suggesting that sentiment in a different thread might get puzzled responses from people who couldn't imagine someone cutting someone up unless it was connected directly to a form of the mental illness present.

Cheers

[Ausgirl]

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between postmortem mutilators with sexually related (or other psychopathological) motives and those who chop up a corpse purely for expedient disposal.

Where the Thames torso murders are concerned (if this what you mean by 'other threads', if not sorry), there was mutilation evident on some of those corpses which goes beyond absolute necessity, ie, genital and abdominal mutilation, suggesting another motivation besides pure necessity being involved.

Also the repeated and 'neat' disarticulation of the bodies -might- have more to do with ritual than it does expedience. Otherwise, why open up the joints, etc, as if dressing an animal, when a few hardy (if less skilful) chops with a cleaver would do just as well. That care was taken is in itself a potential sign that the disarticulation and dismemberment had greater significance to the killer.

I'm presently (and as I get time) collating some information on the methods of dismemberment among cannibalistic societies as well as the difference between dismemberment among say, mob hits (purely practical, on the whole) and those committed by sexual sadists where mutilation is also present - hopefully to gain some insight into what would motivate the type of cuts made in the torso cases.

Anyway, where JtR is concerned, the question of whether the mutilations had other motives besides sexual gratification has always interested me.

[Damaso Marte]

The Ripper is often called the first modern serial killer, but the more I read about other serial killers, the more I think that title belongs to the Torso Killer and not Jack.

Jack did not engage in any sexual activity with his victims, not before killing them, not after killing them, despite the fact that his victims were not just female, but "unfortunate". He did not appear to take any pleasure in torturing his victims - it appears that they all died very quickly and, apart from perhaps Mary Kelly, never saw the knife. And of course he did not dismember, merely mutilate.

Perhaps he wanted to do some of these things but couldn't - maybe he was impotent, maybe he was a dosser who didn't have the privacy to torture and dismember. Or he was just a very different sort of beast from those mentioned upthread.

[Ausgirl]

Well.. we can't know whether JtR ever had sex with his victims (I don't think he did, too much says otherwise) - but the swiftness of his 'blitz' style attacks, designed to kill quickly, and with all the major body injuries occurring post-mortem, I have to assume that he wasn't one of those fellers who gets off on the victim's terror. Rightly you say 'they never saw the knife'.

So if rape and terrorising are off the table, what was he all about? He terrorised half of London, really.. and if even one of the JtR letters are genuine, public terror could feasibly be viewed as part of his motive, or at least consequential one which grew as he went along, a la Zodiac.

Really, I'm thinking the mutilation was piquerism - an alternative for sex, with a subject who could never complain to him or talk to anyone. An impotent necrophile, who liked his bodies warm? Who knows.

Hints of cannibalism, too - and in the case of documented mutilator/cannibals (Albert Fish et al) there's some who wrote letters to victims/police and kept extensive journals.. Reaching out, in their own way. It'd be a terribly lonely existence, perhaps it comes from that need as well as narcissism for the boasty ones.