Serial Killers Who Have Inserted Themselves Into The Investigation

[Wickerman]

So who needs to insert themselves in an investigation? Killers who obsess over control, killers who have no other way of keeping track of how close the cops are getting, killers who need the ego boost of watching the cops run in circles, killers who need to be noticed and approved by law enforcement...

There is no strong indication that Hutchinson attempted to steer the investigation. Although he did present this client otherwise unknown to police, he made no suggestion in his statement that this client was responsible for her murder, nor that he even looked the "killer" type.

Re - witness injecting themselves into an investigation.
If an example is required we only need to look at the intentionally misleading statement by Violenia, and the subsequent intent to incriminate Pizer.
As opposed to the seemingly innocent statement given by Hutchinson with no expressed intent to incriminate anyone.
It cannot be readily argued that the investigators were so easily mislead, they knew how to expose a fraud when presented with one.

And there are different levels of participation. Some insert themselves into an investigation by just hanging out in a cop bar listening to conversations. Low risk, low visibility, pretty good information. And some insert themselves by trying to be a "witness", actively pursuing police information. High risk, high reward, high visibility, usually backfires.

The former does not appear to be the case here (re Hutchinson), and there's no evidence of the latter, ie; that he tried to "pursue police information". In fact we have no indication the police shared their information with him, the press, or anyone else for that matter.

It's not about the odds here, because we don't know what kind of killer we are dealing with. Sure most serial killers don't do this, because most don't have the resources or the need. But some do, and those that do display specific traits or have specific advantages.

(in bold), and I think that is the most important point here, that this is the least likely option, which is the point I was making.

If Jack knew cops, or knew cop hangouts it's even odds that he would take advantage of that somehow.

We are likely dealing here with a period before policemen had known 'hangouts'.

What is becoming apparent is that the more points that are raised on this issue, the less the glove seems to fit Hutchinson.

[Errata]

We can see that there is not an over abundance of examples.
Which probably speaks to the weakness of the proposal (Re - Hutchinson).

Well I think it's more important WHY there aren't more examples, to really judge the weakness of the theory.

First of all, a lot of serial killers are not identified as serial killers until they are caught. Dahmer didn't get arrested because of some investigation on the disappearances on gay men. Nobody connected it. He got pinched because her screwed up. Killers like him don't need to insert themselves into an investigation, because there is no investigation.

And then some serial killers don't need to insert themselves in an investigation because they have built in "radar" so to speak. Ted Bundy was a political player, he had several important friends, several friends in law enforcement. If the cops started asking questions about him, his friends would tell him. And according to some sources, that's exactly what happened. He didn't make these friends for the purpose of using them to alert him to questions, but it was a good perk.

And then some serial killers don't insert themselves into an investigation because getting caught just isn't in their head. Most of the clinically insane killers are like this, but it's not confined to them. The raging egotist killers also tend to fall into this category, and it's usually confirmed in their minds by "beating" the cops when questioned on related crimes. Gacy was classic in this regard. He didn't think about getting caught because he didn't think he could be caught. He beat a rape and assault charge, and cops are somewhat notorious for not investigating anything involving gay sex.

Nowadays, killers rarely have to insert themselves in an investigation because the 24 hour news cycle keeps them ridiculously informed. Without ever leaving the house they can find out when bodies are discovered, and which bodies are discovered. They know when people put it together that there is a serial killer, they know when the police find evidence of any nature, and they know when an arrest is imminent. They know when to run and when it's safe. Information that previously could only come from the cops.

So who needs to insert themselves in an investigation? Killers who obsess over control, killers who have no other way of keeping track of how close the cops are getting, killers who need the ego boost of watching the cops run in circles, killers who need to be noticed and approved by law enforcement. Not stupid. Stupid killers can't control it. Not insane killers, because that gets them caught. Not socially handicapped killers, they can't pull it off. And not cautious killers, because they know it increases their visibility.

And there are different levels of participation. Some insert themselves into an investigation by just hanging out in a cop bar listening to conversations. Low risk, low visibility, pretty good information. And some insert themselves by trying to be a "witness", actively pursuing police information. High risk, high reward, high visibility, usually backfires.

It's not about the odds here, because we don't know what kind of killer we are dealing with. Sure most serial killers don't do this, because most don't have the resources or the need. But some do, and those that do display specific traits or have specific advantages. If Jack knew cops, or knew cop hangouts it's even odds that he would take advantage of that somehow. The question is whether or not he had those resources, and if he did what level of risk he was willing to take. It's about what he needed. And thats one of those things that statistics don't help with. If 90% of serial killers don't do this, that doesn't mean Jack was 90% likely not to do this. Simply by being in the 19th century he didn't have 90% of the options 20th century killers had. Odds can't answer the question. Behavior answers the question.

[babybird67]

Dennis Rader

is another one.

[Wickerman]

We can see that there is not an over abundance of examples.
Which probably speaks to the weakness of the proposal (Re - Hutchinson).

[GUT]

G'day Stan

Thanks I hadn't heard about the ride alongs.

As I said earlier I think that Christie deserves at least one more murder to his credit for Timothy Evans.

[sdreid]

Yes, as GUT mostly answered:

Christie, gave more evidence in regard to Evans than he would have had to and that took any suspicions off him and put it on to, in my view, an innocent man.

Kemper, milked police for information regarding his murders and I believe, according to him, even went on some ride-alongs with some of his officer buddies.

[GUT]

G'day Bridewell

Chistie gave evidence against James Evans, who hanged for a murder [of his daughter] that is almost universally accepted was committed by Christie. Evans was later given a posthumous pardon.

Kemper used to drink with the police who were on his case.

[Bridewell]

To start off:

J. R. H. Christie

Edmund Kemper

Thanks, Stan. I have read a book on Christie but it was a while ago. Can you add a one-liner in both cases please, just to show how they did so. I'm not doubting you for one moment but a brief "what he did" would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Bridewell]

Good idea, Bridewell, but I wouldn't restrict it to serial killers. It would be useful to know how frequent any kind of criminal inserts themselves into an inquiry. As a tactic to "throw investigators off the scent", I don't see why such behaviour should necessarily be more particular to serial killers than to other types of miscreant. Casting a wider net should give us a more definitive idea of just how widespread the phenomenon is.

Thanks, Sam. I understand the points raised and don't have an issue with broadening the scope of this to include other crimes, although I'd like to see the focus on serial killers particularly. Ian Huntley infamously inserted himself into the Soham murder enquiry, but he wasn't a serial killer.

[Paddy]

Searches

I think that participating in a search party would be a place for a killer to keep abreast of things.
I knew of one that did just that but was not a serial killer (still alive so cant mention)
Also the vigilance commitee would be a good place to keep in the know?

Pat............................................... ........

[Tom_Wescott]

If you believe in the guilt of Wayne Williams (Atlanta Child Murders), which I don't, then there's an example. The man John Douglas of the FBI believed was the Green River Killer would insert himself into the investigation. Of course, this man has since been proved completely innocent.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

Ted Bundy inserted himself into the search for Ridgeway, but I don't think that's what you're after.

[babybird67]

absolutely agree

with that GUT.

Thanks for starting this thread with my question Bridewell (see I can ask sensible questions sometimes!)

[GUT]

I also think his tally should be 9 and not 8. He should be credited with Timothy Evans, who he killed as surely as if he shot the man.

[GUT]

I find Christie interesting, most "experts" say that SK's start young. The frst murder for Christie was when he was 43 or 44.