Isn't it sad....

[RipperNoob]

Isn't it sad how we pay more attention to killers are, what their personalities are/were, what drove them to do what the did, their life stories, than we do their victims?

There are probably numerous books written, documentaries produced, and movies made, about the lives of John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy and all of the other vicious, merciless killers of this world...Yet how many books, documentaries and films exist about the lives of their victims?

I understand that the serial killer is more "interesting" to us, as normal people, because the mindset of a killer is something most of us can thankfully never truly understand, and thus, it's fascinating, alien, taboo, intriguing, to try to enter the mind of a monster or find out "Why?"...But even still...The way we as a society focus a special on who these murderers were as people in a way puts them above their victims as people...It's exactly what many of these serial killers want: Power, control, influence, attention. It makes them more important than who they kill, and this importance is usually of great importance to serial killers.

Ironically, by studying serial killers, by interviewing them, we as a society are almost rewarding them even if we're only interviewing them or studying them for scientific purposes, for the interests of bettering society. Death and the Death Penalty seem to hold no real terror for men like Ted Bundy and the countless other serial killers who have met Death, be it in the electric chair, the gas chamber or through lethal injection.

But interviews, attention, a national focus on them--That brings these monsters joy. It's what they want. By talking about their murders, I'm sure, in a way, it allows them to relive the event; to replay the fantasy not only within themselves, but for a national audience--How thrilling and rewarding must that feel for a serial killer, whose whole existence is centered around fantasies?

If a potential killer--someone whose background, psychology and general mindset are conditioned toward the potential for violence, but who haven't killed yet--see all the attention, infamy and obsession that other men like them merit, could it not drive them to live out their demented fantasies, in the hope that they too will become another infamous icon, another Ted Bundy?

I'm sorry if I'm rambling in the way I state this message, but I hope the message itself is understood. I understand that the victims of serial killers are less "fascinating" than their killers, simply because they're so much like us--normal, average people--But that's a reason we should celebrate them, write books about THEIR lives, their dreams, their personalities. By knowing murder victims as only that, it lessens them as people--which is exactly what serial killers do to their victims in the first place. It degrades them to the level of objects, evidence in a crime. I'm not saying that that is the intent. I too find serial killers interesting and would love if every single one of them was caught and put beyond bars. But it's still sad that this fixation on the villain rather than the innocent victim is a part of our culture and even perhaps our nature as human beings.

I think if we celebrated and focused more on the victims of serial killers, than on the killers themselves, it'd at least be disheartening for the serial killer. It'd put his victim above him, it'd make his victim have in some small way more 'power' than him--Something a serial killer would likely hate.

I just hate that we see so many innocent lives taken--So many promising people's bright lights, bright futures extinguished--and in most cases we end up knowing little about them, except their death. What does a person's existence mean if their death is what their most remembered for? What does a person mean if we only know them as a corpse?

Ironically, sadly, we probably know a lot more about Ted Bundy, Richard Chase, John Wayne Gacy, H.H. Holmes, etc than we do about their victims. Their names live on despite their evil deeds, yet their victims go largely forgotten by the masses. At least in a case like Jack's--We don't know who the killer was for sure, so we focus on the victims, along of course with searching along Jack's cold trail--So at least Eddowes, Kelly, Stride, Nichols and Chapman's lives and histories before their deaths hold interest, and they aren't forgotten as people. But in most other cases, that isn't so.

[Limehouse]

Morning RN - and welcome to casebook.

You make some interesting points. Victims do often fade into the background when a high profile case emerges. In the case of JtR - I am always concerned when a production of the musical Jack the Ripper is given because I think it is highly disrespectful to the victims and their families to turn a series of vicious klillings into an all-singing all-dancing piece of entertainment.

However - I will challenge you on a few points. Firstly - victims of serial killer usually (but not always) end up deceased so it is impossible for them to have a full voice. Their families (also victims) often do continue to keep the victims within public awareness so that they are not forgotten. The mother of Lesley Ann Downey (a victim of Brady/Hindley) is an example - as is the mother of Keith Bennett who has been fighting a campaign for over thirty years to get her son's body off Sadleworth moor for a proper burial.

A young man called Richard McCann is the son of one of Peter Sutcliffe's first victims (Wilma McCann) and he started a support group for the children of Sutcliffe. He has written books and gives talks - mainly about self improvement after trauma. In his first book - he paints a very different picture of the mother who went out that night and never came home. Unlike the press - who described her as neglectful and immoral - Richard describes a loving mother with her own demons who tried hard to give them a decent home.

Some of the women who survived Sutcliffe's attacks have been interviewed and have written articles and books and some of the parents of his deceased victims have done the same. However - it is important to remember that some victims and victims' families do not want publicity and would rather be left alone with their memories and their grief.

Finally - I assume you are not resident in the UK because - although I know some serial killers have been interviewed on the TV in the USA - such exposure is almost never allowed on British TV by a serving prisoner. However - on occasion - such prisoners have been allowed to talk to authors and to certain members of the press. When an article appears in the press - say an interview or a summary of an interview - it is always subject to approval by the Home Office.

[kensei]

RipperNoob,
Thankfully, it is not always that way. A murder occurred in my local area in 2003 that became a federal case because the commission of it crossed the North Dakota-Minnesota border and it became a nationally known story. A 22-year old college girl named Dru Sjodin was kidnapped and killed by a recently parolled serial rapist named Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., who is currently on federal death row in Indiana. Dru was killed in late November just before the winter snows came, and her body wasn't found until spring. Hundreds of people joined the search for her- I was among them. Of course there was attention given to Rodriguez in the press, who he was, what his history was, but it was far outweighed by the coverage of Dru's life. How loved she was, how she was an up and coming art student. The whole region was just heartbroken, people who had never even heard of her before going into deep mourning. Her funeral was broadcast on t.v. I know Rodriguez's won't be. No winners in that story to be sure, but I thought you might appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I reccomend tracking down the book "The Victims of Jack the Ripper" by Neal Stubbings Shelden. There is barely a mention of the Ripper in it.

[louisa]

I hate to say it but the victims just aren't as interesting as the murderers.

I'm an 'armchair criminologist' and I like to try and get into the mindset of the murderer - what made them do it.

A victim is just that, somebody who (in the case of serial killers) just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Heinrich]

RipperNoob, speaking only for myself, I am more interested in one victim, Mary Kelly, than in trying to find the serial killer responsible for 4, 5, 6, or more murders in Whitechapel. The more I tried to find out about her, the more I became suspicious of Joseph Barnett as her killer and I am not persuaded that he murdered others although he might have done. Considering most of what we know about Mary Kelly comes from contradictory statements from her one-time partner, I do agree that in the futile chase to pin every murder on one man, the victims tend to become a statistic.

[Rubyretro]

--

So at least Eddowes, Kelly, Stride, Nichols and Chapman's lives and histories before their deaths hold interest, and they aren't forgotten as people. But in most other cases, that isn't so

.[/QUOTE]

You have touched on something here, Rippernoob. Personally, I think that the victims and their lives are the big reason why I am so interested in the Ripper case.

I'd like to know who Jack was by curiosity, but, given the choice, I'd far
rather know who Mary Kelly was.

Despite the horrific mutilations of the Ripper's victims, I feel more comfortable
with the fact that he killed them so quickly that they hardly knew what was happening, rather than torture them for hours (I don't think that I would want to know anything about the case, if that had been the fact).

[suspiria_2]

there is, quite possibly, one victim who is more famous than her killer although one does have to question whether that is because her murder is still unsolved.

bonus points for guessing the name Elizabeth Short.

in her case, i don't think that the infamy was welcome at all by her family because the media was intent on playing her up as a man-crazy, unemployed grifter of some type. also, photos of her body as it was found were passed around among the hollywood intelligentsia (and still are on the more gruesome websites) like one would show around the latest Dali print.

still and all, even people who were not born when she died feel something for her, and her grave is often decorated in an attempt to honour a woman whose great misfortune was the cause of her fame.

[Errata]

I would say that more people know the name and story of Sharon Tate than the people who killed her. None of which was Charles Manson. And I'm pretty sure that Charles Manson only got as much press as he did because of his outrageous behavior at his trial rather than any crime he committed.

And while there are ay number of women that I can only refer to as "a victim of Ted Bundy", and certainly that is not a descriptive they would have hoped for, I remember them as lives cut short. While I may be horribly fascinated by Ted Bundy, I can never view him with anything other than horror and disgust.

Serial killers are somewhat akin to the Darwin Awards. If you read a story about a man who died of a heart attack in his sleep at the the age of 77, that doesn't stick out in your mind. If you read a story about a guy who pours gasoline into a drain pipe and then crawls in and lights it in an effort to get a raccoon out, and the explosion was such that pieces of him were launched over the house, thats a story that sticks with you. You won't remember the 77 year old man. You will remember raccoon guy as one of the dumbest people ever to briefly grace this planet.

But I would much rather be a forgotten 77 year old, remembered only by loved ones than be raccoon guy, and immortalized for an act of Darwin defying stupidity. And the irony is, raccoon guy could have been a brilliant doctor who revolutionized and perfected a critical life saving technique who got too drunk at a barbecue. But he's never gonna be "life saving guy" he will always be "raccoon guy". So how someone is remembered counts quite a bit.

[Mayerling]

Hi all,

Actually, one of the concentration of groups like this casebook is that it does make us dig and dig deeper and deeper for more information on the Victims.
We know far more about not only the classic five Victims (including getting photographs of Annie Chapman when she was in fairly stable circumstances) but of other victims like Carrie Brown ("Old Shakespeare"). That is restoring them in part. Considering how much we don't know about their killer (s) just seems just to me.

Jeff