London serial killer on trial

[DarkPassenger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7600279.stm

Yes, he killed two and so, to fuddy-duddies, does not "qualify" as a serial killer.

Can I ask those people, if a dictator massacred people, but in some way which did not literally break international law, is it less important than "proper" genocide?

Qualitative, not quantitive, details matter.

[sdreid]

Thanks Dark. Both the NIJ and Newton's Encyclopedia of Serial Killers say that two murders is enough to qualify as SK if they are separate acts and I tend to agree.

[DarkPassenger]

I'm writing a book documenting every British serial killer, or at least the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries. My list keeps getting longer!

[Ally]

I think it depends on the context. I mean gang style killings, someone might kill 2 people but it wouldn't make them a serial killer.

He preyed, he picked victims on the fringes or from a specific type, etc. Just because he only managed to get 2 doesn't mean he doesn't fit the parameters of a serial killer. If the intent was there...I think the term "serial" killer is what needs to go. I think the motivation behind murder is more important than the number.

[DarkPassenger]

You do get idiots asking "Is Hitler a serial killer?" because they obviously focus on the idea of multiple murder - as you say, - rather than the personal, predatory nature of the crimes. Definition should be obvious - Hitler isn't a killer, never mind a serial killer; Shipman is, so is Bundy, Brady, Wright, Bellfield, but not Archibald Hall - he killed five people haphazardly over the course of a botched rip-off job while working as a butler at a stately home. He may fit the quota for a serial killer, but he isn't one. Arguably, neither is Donald Neilson, the Black Panther. He was an armed robber, after the money - his murder of Lesley Whittle was a botched kidnap plot.

You're right - context is the most important thing. Any criminologist who ignores killers like Bellfield or Brown but includes Hall or Neilson needs to learn more about serial killers.

[caz]

Hi All,

I know of at least three cases where men were only known to have killed once, but it was clear that if they had been more proficient at rendering their victims dead, or hadn't been caught when they were, they would have 'earned' the definition of serial killer. So I agree that the term and how it is used can be quite misleading. Repeat violent offender might be a better fit, but it still wouldn't deal with those who only manage to offend once before being buckled or becoming otherwise incapable. We may only know about the tip of the iceberg.

Love,

Caz
X

[DarkPassenger]

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Fame-boast-of-murder-charge.4488309.jp

Like Colin Ireland, Daniel Gonzalez and Mark Martin, this one wanted to be famous "in an unpleasent way." Why since the 1990s have people chosen serial murder as a method of fame?

Latest developments;

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Murder-accused-refuses-to-take.4518589.jp

He refuses to take the stand - the trial shouldn't last much longer now.

[Uncle Jack]

A vicious killer murdering prostitutes in Whitechapel.... sounds familiar doesn't it. It seems he may have carried on had he been given the chance.

Best regards

Adam