Can Serial Killers Quit?

[Cap'n Jack]

But you see, Colin Wilson also uses this twisted logic when it comes to discussing serial killers and the like.
He claims that a woman wearing a mini skirt or hitching a ride in a car is 'asking for it'.
Worse than that Colin Wilson also claims that child victims of such crimes have contributed to the event by intiating sexual 'games' with adults.
I have always maintained that Wilson's great body of work represents moral encouragement to men who would commit serious crimes against women and children... a sort of serial killer's guide to excuses for when he is caught. Worse still is the fact that killers have actually admitted that they have used Wilson's work as tacit approval for their crimes.
These killers have very real friends in the stink that is the publishing world of today, and yesterday.

[Cap'n Jack]

Because I knew you would ask, 'ere's wot that bloke, AP Wolf had to say bout it in 1993:
'But to get back to Wilson and his theories. It is well worth examining some of his other statements when it comes to murder and sex. For instance where he ponders over the plight of female murder victims he cites the case of Blanche Fisher who was beaten and murdered in Vancouver in 1949, and wonders why such an attractive woman had remained unmarried. It is almost as though Blanche Fisher had invited murder by being attractive and unmarried. Is Wilson implying that such a woman has no right to enjoy a healthy sex life? But there is worse to come when Wilson discusses sexual crimes against children, maintaining that we are generally disposed to believe that children are the innocent victims of 'lust-crazed maniacs'. He points out that it is, in fact, often the child that instigates sexual activity with the adult. Yes, Colin Wilson is quite right, children do often initiate harmless sexual games, but it is most certainly adults who turn these harmless sexual games into reality and sometimes murder.

An innocent child's quest for the facts of life, however, can never be offered as an excuse for rape or murder.

Equally bizarre, perhaps, is Wilson's thinking on the case of the 22-year-old woman who accepted a lift from two men in Kingsport, Tennessee in 1970. They drove her to a nearby quarry and raped her. During the night she was cut and stabbed with a knife and threatened with murder and the next day was raped and beaten consistently. The next night she had to go through the ordeal again, being eventually released the following day when she promised not to go to the police. She did go to the police and the men were quite rightly jailed for what were pretty horrific crimes. Wilson does admit that the woman was attacked by two sadists but also claims she was equally to blame. If the reader is perplexed by that assertion, the implication being presumably that women should not accept lifts (although it is important here to note that the woman did know and trust the men) Wilson goes on to claim that a female who makes a habit of wearing low-cut dresses can be to blame if she is murdered.

Why?

Surely a normal masculine reaction to a well-displayed pair of female breast is pleasure and not murder. Does Wilson really feel that the murder rate goes up and down depending on the year's fashion of cleavage exposure? Do miniskirts incite murder?

If his theory is correct then surely we must find that the murder rate at naturist clubs is significantly higher than at golf clubs?

It is almost as if Colin Wilson is putting his considerable influence towards excusing the mass murderers he is writing about. The victims have invited murder, either by wearing low-cut dresses, accepting lifts off strangers or being a pretty, unmarried woman or even a child who seeks an explanation of the facts of life. Perhaps even more alarming is the behaviour of some obviously disturbed people who appear to have read some of Wilson's work. One famous example was William Macdonald, a homosexual mutilator who savagely murdered and hacked to pieces men he picked up around Sydney, Australia. Police on his trail discovered a copy of Wilson's novel 'Ritual in the Dark' wrapped in a bloodstained pillow in Macdonald's house. This story from Wilson concerns the activities of a homosexual mass murderer. Later when police arrested him in Melbourne they found a copy of Wilson's 'An Encyclopedia of Murder' in his possession and asked him why he wanted to read such a book. His reply was: 'It's the only thing I get any pleasure from.'

[DarkPassenger]

But you see, Colin Wilson also uses this twisted logic when it comes to discussing serial killers and the like.
He claims that a woman wearing a mini skirt or hitching a ride in a car is 'asking for it'.
Worse than that Colin Wilson also claims that child victims of such crimes have contributed to the event by intiating sexual 'games' with adults.

You truly have no depth. He was discussing the triggers for sexual crimes and the ways in which serial killers justify themselves - if a girl has a short skirt, she's asking for it, so I'll kill her. Paedophiles may kid themselves (pardon the pun) that their victims "flirted" with them - it's part of a psychopathic makeup. Wilson is not saying women with short skirts DO ask for it, is he!

I have always maintained that Wilson's great body of work represents moral encouragement to men who would commit serious crimes against women and children... a sort of serial killer's guide to excuses for when he is caught. Worse still is the fact that killers have actually admitted that they have used Wilson's work as tacit approval for their crimes.
These killers have very real friends in the stink that is the publishing world of today, and yesterday.

Serial killers blame anyone but themselves! If they found Wilson illuminating, it's probably because his theory hit the nail on the head and they related to him. Then blamed him, then, of course, because they had a handy fall-guy, because - remember - they always blame someone else!

[DarkPassenger]

'But to get back to Wilson and his theories. It is well worth examining some of his other statements when it comes to murder and sex. For instance where he ponders over the plight of female murder victims he cites the case of Blanche Fisher who was beaten and murdered in Vancouver in 1949, and wonders why such an attractive woman had remained unmarried. It is almost as though Blanche Fisher had invited murder by being attractive and unmarried. Is Wilson implying that such a woman has no right to enjoy a healthy sex life?

Oh my GOD! What utter tripe! Talk about twisting words! He was making observations about the victim - how does asking why she wasn't married, since she was attractive, also deny her the right to a sex life? I see plenty of fit girls in my town and they're mostly single, and I think, "damn, how can she still be single? Are all the men blind?" I'm not denying her right to sex now am I?

But there is worse to come when Wilson discusses sexual crimes against children, maintaining that we are generally disposed to believe that children are the innocent victims of 'lust-crazed maniacs'. He points out that it is, in fact, often the child that instigates sexual activity with the adult. Yes, Colin Wilson is quite right, children do often initiate harmless sexual games, but it is most certainly adults who turn these harmless sexual games into reality and sometimes murder.

He says that predatory criminals interpret these "harmless sexual games" as come-ons, which trigger their criminal behaviour, not that children activley insitigate the crimes.

...Wilson does admit that the woman was attacked by two sadists but also claims she was equally to blame. If the reader is perplexed by that assertion, the implication being presumably that women should not accept lifts (although it is important here to note that the woman did know and trust the men) Wilson goes on to claim that a female who makes a habit of wearing low-cut dresses can be to blame if she is murdered.

This is a speculatory statement and, strangely, AJ Wolf or whatever he's called does not offer any quotes. I can say Elvis was a nazi sympathizer without quotes and no-one can say otherwise.

Surely a normal masculine reaction to a well-displayed pair of female breast is pleasure and not murder. Does Wilson really feel that the murder rate goes up and down depending on the year's fashion of cleavage exposure? Do miniskirts incite murder?

We're not talking about "normal" masculine reactions to breasts or sexually exciting stimuli, are we? We're talking about serial killers.

It is almost as if Colin Wilson is putting his considerable influence towards excusing the mass murderers he is writing about. The victims have invited murder, either by wearing low-cut dresses, accepting lifts off strangers or being a pretty, unmarried woman or even a child who seeks an explanation of the facts of life. Perhaps even more alarming is the behaviour of some obviously disturbed people who appear to have read some of Wilson's work. One famous example was William Macdonald, a homosexual mutilator who savagely murdered and hacked to pieces men he picked up around Sydney, Australia. Police on his trail discovered a copy of Wilson's novel 'Ritual in the Dark' wrapped in a bloodstained pillow in Macdonald's house. This story from Wilson concerns the activities of a homosexual mass murderer. Later when police arrested him in Melbourne they found a copy of Wilson's 'An Encyclopedia of Murder' in his possession and asked him why he wanted to read such a book. His reply was: 'It's the only thing I get any pleasure from.'

They found Ann Rule's Green River Running Red at Rifkin's house - I guess she's just as bad, huh? It's known that serial killers collect books about serial killers. Several killers have even written some!

Serial killers are psychopaths with skew-wiff perspectives on sex, interpersonal relationships and society, and their actions and reactions are the result of their psychological makeup. That is why they interpret struggling girls as a turn on, children's games as come-ons, miniskirts as reasons to kill, because they're twisted. Wilson's work revolves around seeing the world from the killer's perspective - and because some people find his work so appalling in it's tone and content, is evidence of it's hard-hitting accuracy. People always say they want to see into the mind of a serial killer and Wilson does probably the best job yet offered in the 20th or 21st Centuries. If you interpret his interpretations as his personal opinions or preferences, then that is your problem. I could say that homosexual killers will tend to hunt in gay bars, and you will say I am suggesting people who go to gay bars deserve killing - that seems to be your perspective, and it's wrong.

[needler]

I would guess that there are as many reasons an SK "quits" as there are people alive today. Maybe an interview with the cops, maybe an inquisitive wife/husband/significant other, maybe thinking he/she has been "seen" and therefore in the frame, maybe a holiday to Antarctica, maybe a bad cold, maybe taking time out to view a mini-series on the demise of the DoDo bird, maybe because it's a good night for a Moon Dance. We can speculate forever, but the causes of an interval in killing are probably far too numerous to list.

But here's one for you all, and do NOT yell at me; I'm too old for that and will pretend I didn't hear you. I'm only thinking out loud on this lovely Friday.......
Weren't we ALL born predators, anyway? And, if so, why is it a stretch to consider other humans to be prey of a sort? Before religious dicta and societal mores declared "long pig" as verboten, the guy in the next village or the girl in the forest might have been a powerful attraction to a young fella out for a stroll, so why NOT do your thing and leave the mess behind? After all, the folks in the next village or encampment aren't REALLY as valuable as you, nor do they talk to the same Sun God, NOR do they eat the same things or wear the same hair style. PREY?? YUP! We still talk about "wolves on the prowl" and do NOT mean the four-legged kind..... The guys next door are fungible and not as good as WE, so why not?? Just a nibble at a thought.... maybe hunting humans is what we did before we came up with a definition of "human".....now we call 'em serial killers, or spree killers or mass murderers (depending on the circumstances). And, yes, I know that's a very dark take on people in general, but there you are.........

On THAT cheerful note, I'm off to do stupid errands, none of which involve buying ANYTHING for the holidays!

Cheers,

Judy

[Cap'n Jack]

'This is a speculatory statement and, strangely, AJ Wolf or whatever he's called does not offer any quotes. I can say Elvis was a nazi sympathizer without quotes and no-one can say otherwise.'

Colin Wilson's publishers will not allow AP Wolf to quote from his published works under threat of court action.

[Cap'n Jack]

That bloke again:

'It is well worth looking at some of Colin Wilson's comments in his latest effort - as he is one of the most prolific Ripper writers of all time - to come to grips with `his' Ripper. In describing the Ripper about his task of killing Annie Chapman, Wilson equates the killer's behaviour with that of a dog copulating with a bitch on heat. Mary Jane Kelly's murder has blood spurting over walls and Wilson postulates that the Ripper must therefore have been naked when he discovered the `ultimate thrill', a 3-month-old foetus in the victim's womb. When it comes to Catherine Eddowes' murder Wilson uses words like `delight' and `delicate' to describe the horrifying attack and then goes on to make the curious statement that the killer `went almost insane' when he found another victim to murder and mutilate. That is an odd way to describe the actions of a knife-wielding maniac with a bent for murdering and then cutting the insides out of women. Surely the Ripper was already insane before he began his attack on Catherine Eddowes?

In the case of Annie Chapman's sad and brutal murder Wilson's choice of words is particularly painful. After all what on earth have copulating dogs got to do with the callous murder of a woman? And Wilson's `ultimate thrill' of the Ripper discovering the foetus of a child in the womb of Mary Jane Kelly is a bit of a damp squib. Dr Thomas Bond's extensive post-mortem carried out the day after Kelly was murdered makes it absolutely clear that she was not pregnant. There was no foetus to provide Wilson's Ripper with the ultimate thrill.

As an aside to the main story Colin Wilson throws in a case where the victim's intestines were torn out through her vagina, and keen to show us that his Ripper is no ordinary mass murderer he launches into a dramatic and bloody description of his Ripper at his gruesome work. He reveals that the Ripper was not content to merely stab and maim his victims but achieved his pleasure from delving into the bodies and extracting the bloody contents. He then goes on with what almost seems admiration for his Ripper when he describes the killer as being as skillful as a butcher who would never have left a woman dying and performed his mutilations by touch alone.

We will have much more to say about Wilson's opinions and his general influence on the subject of murder, past and present, later, but for now this illustrates the `stuff' that is the `Ripperologist's' bread and butter. This is the type of fictional trivia that is constantly dished up in ever-increasing portions by these people. Armchair detectives writing about the activities of the Ripper for their specialized readers, armchairs murderers. In this curious and quite unique literary vacuum the roles become strangely reversed with the armchair murderers becoming the helpless victims of their armchair detectives and crime writers. '

[perrymason]

A J Wolf..........I almost spit my coffee out. Sorry AP, Im sure you would have preferred it was Grappa or something from the vine.

AP, would you agree that what might differentiate a Jack from other serial killers that are explored here is that he may have had an Obsessive Compulsive disorder...in addition to the possible slew of other maladies he might have had? Im not so sure that a man like that stops until stopped...by natural causes or a death sentence.

Baron....now The Good Michael, brought this up a year or so unconnected to this particular topic, I thought it an interesting point, and I thought fastidious might be a good quality to tag onto a killer like this.

Best regards AP, all.

[sdreid]

Newton's Encyclopedia of Serial Killers (edition two) lists 479 unsolved serial killer cases from 1884-2004. Does anyone seriously believe that all those died or were incarcerated for another crime?

[perrymason]

Newton's Encyclopedia of Serial Killers (edition two) lists 479 unsolved serial killer cases from 1884-2004. Does anyone seriously believe that all those died or were incarcerated for another crime?

Stan, if they are all unsolved, how the hell can they be known as one of series of kills?

There are no "serial" crimes until a specific criminal or criminals have been found to blame. At least thats my take. Otherwise they are "suspected" only.

Cheers Stan.

[sdreid]

Of course they're suspected due to certain similarities. What more can you want?

[perrymason]

Of course they're suspected due to certain similarities. What more can you want?

Oh, I dont know....maybe proof linking the kill to someone...evidence,...I think by now mankind has revealed just about all the things you can use or do to kill someone, or after with the body,...so I wouldnt be surprised if some different killers used the same general techniques.

As I said, and I think its fair, and true, until you have a named killer linked by evidence to deaths, you cannot assume that there are any "series" killers among those unsolved murders.

I do hear your point, perhaps its semantics, but I cant see attributing a death to any kind of killer, serial or single, unless there is at least one case established.

Cheers Stan

[DVV]

Can serial killers quit...killing?
Can drunkards quit drinking?
Can junkies quit heroin?
Can readers quit reading?
Can ripperologists quit ripperology?
It's all the same. The answer is "yes" and "no".

[Vigilantee]

As a sceptic regarding psychology I would deny the existence of the 'serial killer', other than as a subjective umbrella term for a variety of objective conditions.

[diana]

Of course blaming the victim of a rape or murder is reprehensible. The blame rests squarely with the perpetrator.

That said, I taught my daughters not to consort with strangers and to dress modestly. They carry their cell phones in the car. We live in a world with SKs and serial rapists and it is just wise to take precautions.