Serial Killers Who Have Inserted Themselves Into The Investigation

[Errata]

That depends on if they are inserting themselves to mislead, to get information for future kills or simply to relive some of the thrill.

Not that there aren't other reasons as well.

Yeah, there are a bunch of reasons. If we think of it in terms of only one or two reasons, then you'll only get a couple of people matching those parameters. Look at all the reasons, and you might find 99% of serial killers involved themselves in some way. And we have no way of confirming.

Really the only people we can say with any degree of certainty didn't involve themselves in investigations are the highly psychotic or severely delusion killers. Because they don't think they are doing anything wrong, or cannot see past their own obsessions. The same ones who don't plan, pay attention to witnesses, have no escape plans... in short, effin' crazy.

[Wickerman]

Of course another real issue is that the size of our pool is relatively small.

Also, there's a certain anachronism involved.
There are a couple of arguments on Casebook that are influenced by the actions of modern serial killers, the assumption being that serial killers have not evolved but always did what they do today.
This, without the slightest evidence. And it is just as likely that this is what we are dealing with here.

Police in the late Victorian period did not hold as high an influence over society as they do today. As a consequence criminals were not as troubled about being found out, to simply run away was often all that was needed to get away scot-free.

Today, modern serial killers know a murder investigation has no time limit and forensics play an important role so a serial killer may attempt to get on the inside to learn how it is proceeding - its rare but it happens.

The question here is, did it happen a hundred plus years ago. That's a whole different set of circumstances, and the incentive simply didn't exist.

[caz]

It's a very good point, Jon.

That's why I can't really go along with the self-preservation argument in Hutch's case. What were the chances of him ever being recognised again and identified, let alone called to account for his movements that night, if he hadn't volunteered the information himself? Coming forward in my view was more of a risk if he was the ripper than not doing so - even in those dark old days when the police never would have considered a witness as a potential suspect, no matter what.

In Christie's case, and that of Colin Ireland, their behaviour when the shi* hit was completely understandable in their individual circumstances. Ireland had the bravado (he made a New Year's resolution to become a serial killer and needed the cops to link his murders) and the need for self-preservation when seen on CCTV.

In Hutch's case, if he was the ripper and injected himself just for jolly, because he could, I would have expected him to want more than fifteen minutes of fame followed by being tossed off the radar forever with a flea in his ear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

On the other hand, massive egos are equally likely to mean that the serial killer never sees the need to insert themselves, since they can't possibly get caught.

Although I think a good number actually do. There was a serial here who did it after he screwed up and was seen, and he started hitting up cop bars to see if the witness had given them any kind of good description. She hadn't, so he stopped doing it. And another one who blew through here who gave a statement as a witness because he couldn't get away from the scene in time. It was a nothing statement, no description given, average bystander stuff. But it counts. And I'm sure he didn't give his real name, the only reason they know about was that a news crew was there and filmed him talking to the cops. When they caught him the film editor recognized him from the tape.

So despite our perception that this behavior is pretty rare, we don't know. The only way we would know is if the killer used his real name, a cop or reporter remembered him in hindsight, or the killer confessed to doing it. And those things don't happen that often. But there are a lot of ways killers insert themselves into an investigation that we never hear about. That are never uncovered.

Great point.

[RivkahChaya]

Yeah. If this tactic "works," as a way of diverting authorities, then theoretically we won't know about the most successful ones.

Actually, I think this is an extrapolation from an idea that some criminals are people who wanted to get into law enforcement as a career, and didn't make it, so becoming criminals was a way of being part of the law enforcement cycle. I'm not sure that's even true as a general theory, but I think it's even less true about people whose crimes (thrill murders) are pathologically, or compulsively, driven.

I see the kernel of the idea in that a lot of pseudo-militia types are people who washed out of basic training, or couldn't get into the actual military in the first place. But I'm not sure it works for criminals.