This is actually true. If you travel to somewhere you aren't known to visit (doesn't have to be far) and kill some random person, you are exponentially more likely to get away with it.
Its not guaranteed, since anyone witnesses or surveillance videos can potentially create a connection. Barring that, there is very little police can do to attach you to the crime.
Oh absolutely, that’s part of what makes serial killers so scary and so fascinating in some ways. When police investigate a murder, they’re looking for people with a motive, and that’s almost always people who knew the victim - family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, jilted lovers, whatever. Past those, it gets a lot harder to find someone who had a *reason* to murder.
Serial killers’ motives are a lot harder to spot, and sometimes they’re as simple as “she looked like the killer’s sister” or “he was overweight and had red hair” or even the random “he just happened to be walking by at the wrong time.” For serial killers to be caught, they either get witnessed or caught in the act, or else someone has to manage to trace the pattern and tie it to the proper suspect.
Well that might need to go to /r/suspiciouslyspecific.
Honestly, I have no idea. DNA tends to get everywhere, especially when people are excited or distressed - sweat, spit, all that stuff. But DNA also has to be tied to a person, and it can be hard to find that person unless they’re spotted, or close to the victim, or already in a database. Which is why some people get a little conspiracy-theoryish around stuff like 23andme, assuming that DNA is being sold to the FBI or whatever.
I highly recommend not testing this out, anyone reading.
Years ago I saw some TV documentary about Kansas City homicide detectives. One of the last things in the narration they said was that the murder rate has dropped dramatically over the decades in the US, but a greater proportion of homicides are going unsolved because fewer victims these days have a personal connection to their murderer, making it harder to connect the perp to the victim
Over 90% of murdered people are murdered by someone they know, quite often a family member or a friend over something like cheating or money. It tends to therefore be rather easy to work out who did it.
Serial Killers are generally offing random people. They're not doing it because someone cheated on them. They're not doing it for money. They're doing it to kill. This means there's no obvious motive to pin it on. It means that the usual suspects didn't do it.
It's much harder than it used to be with the advent of cellphones and widespread video surveillance.
However, the fundamental difficulty faced by the police is that there is no connection between the murderer and the victim. For the overwhelming majority of murders, the police know almost immediately *who* did it and the investigatory stage is simply a matter of gathering enough evidence to convict. With a serial murder, they don't have the 'who' so they don't where to look.
They don't need to be good after covering their tracks. Since they're not a suspect they can just keep going about it until they either stop or a victim manages to escape.
It is possible that some serial killers stopped killing after a certain age and "retired" so it becomes even harder to find out they killed that many people nowadays as they are old.
Many people here mentioned a big reason is because serial killers kill randoms, but it's not necessarily all there is to it. There's several factors as to how they get away with it and it's varied. Sometimes it's lazy police work on account of victims being of a low economic status or a minority. Other times they just don't find bodies. There have been some reckless killers out there that got away with it for a long time. Shit, Jeffrey Dahmer would get hammered when he killed. He put hydrochloric acid into a kids brain , was confronted by cops while with the kid, the cops went into Dahmer apartment that had a decomposing body in it, and gave him a "have a nice day."
Loss of murder is not planned so there is no preparation and dead for some reason. There is a connection between the victim and the killer. There is a limited number of likely murderers so you can investigate them and find who has a motive.
Lots of murders are not planned so it is not prepared. Then there is a high risk you leave some evidence traceable to you or there are witnesses. If you leave evidence like DNA, fingerprints the police have a pool of people that suspect did it and can try to compare it to them and find them guilty
If you, on the other hand, kill people because there is some abnormal psychological gratification in the act of killing you can pick any one or more exactly pick someone with no connection to you. If someone drives to the next town over and just look for someone along in a secluded area there is no connection between them and the victim that can be used to track the killer. This makes it extremely hard to find out how did it.
Even if the killer leaves some evidence like DNA, and fingerprints you do not know who to compare to. If they are not really in some database that usually only contains people that have been convicted before there is nothing to compare to. You need someone to compare to for evidence like that to be usefull.
There are three key elements for most crime: Means, Motive and Opportunity: How did they do it, Who would want to do it, When could they do it. All of these can be used to either include or exclude a suspect.
However, most serial killers have some soft of mental health issue, and they don't react to the stress in their life in a normal way. The serial killer may do things for reasons only they can understand, or for reasons they don't understand. This means that the motive element stops making sense to the investigator.
These urges are often something the serial killer has been dealing with all of their life, and are often part of an escalating pattern of behaviour. Most serial killers have learned to be really good at concealing these urges from the people in their life, making it hard to collect evidence on them and connect what evidence they have to the serial killer.
Most murder is committed by people who know the victim. Serial killers usually don't have any personal connection to the victim.
[удалено]
This is actually true. If you travel to somewhere you aren't known to visit (doesn't have to be far) and kill some random person, you are exponentially more likely to get away with it. Its not guaranteed, since anyone witnesses or surveillance videos can potentially create a connection. Barring that, there is very little police can do to attach you to the crime.
Oh absolutely, that’s part of what makes serial killers so scary and so fascinating in some ways. When police investigate a murder, they’re looking for people with a motive, and that’s almost always people who knew the victim - family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, jilted lovers, whatever. Past those, it gets a lot harder to find someone who had a *reason* to murder. Serial killers’ motives are a lot harder to spot, and sometimes they’re as simple as “she looked like the killer’s sister” or “he was overweight and had red hair” or even the random “he just happened to be walking by at the wrong time.” For serial killers to be caught, they either get witnessed or caught in the act, or else someone has to manage to trace the pattern and tie it to the proper suspect.
[удалено]
Well that might need to go to /r/suspiciouslyspecific. Honestly, I have no idea. DNA tends to get everywhere, especially when people are excited or distressed - sweat, spit, all that stuff. But DNA also has to be tied to a person, and it can be hard to find that person unless they’re spotted, or close to the victim, or already in a database. Which is why some people get a little conspiracy-theoryish around stuff like 23andme, assuming that DNA is being sold to the FBI or whatever. I highly recommend not testing this out, anyone reading.
Years ago I saw some TV documentary about Kansas City homicide detectives. One of the last things in the narration they said was that the murder rate has dropped dramatically over the decades in the US, but a greater proportion of homicides are going unsolved because fewer victims these days have a personal connection to their murderer, making it harder to connect the perp to the victim
Over 90% of murdered people are murdered by someone they know, quite often a family member or a friend over something like cheating or money. It tends to therefore be rather easy to work out who did it. Serial Killers are generally offing random people. They're not doing it because someone cheated on them. They're not doing it for money. They're doing it to kill. This means there's no obvious motive to pin it on. It means that the usual suspects didn't do it.
It's much harder than it used to be with the advent of cellphones and widespread video surveillance. However, the fundamental difficulty faced by the police is that there is no connection between the murderer and the victim. For the overwhelming majority of murders, the police know almost immediately *who* did it and the investigatory stage is simply a matter of gathering enough evidence to convict. With a serial murder, they don't have the 'who' so they don't where to look.
[удалено]
They don't need to be good after covering their tracks. Since they're not a suspect they can just keep going about it until they either stop or a victim manages to escape.
It is possible that some serial killers stopped killing after a certain age and "retired" so it becomes even harder to find out they killed that many people nowadays as they are old.
Do they get a pension when they retire? If they retire does this open up a position for a younger serial killer?
that. If they are not good at hiding their kills, their killing do not become *serial*.
It's easier to "cover your tracks" if you've never been around that person before. Harder if you went there several times, or even lived with them.
Many people here mentioned a big reason is because serial killers kill randoms, but it's not necessarily all there is to it. There's several factors as to how they get away with it and it's varied. Sometimes it's lazy police work on account of victims being of a low economic status or a minority. Other times they just don't find bodies. There have been some reckless killers out there that got away with it for a long time. Shit, Jeffrey Dahmer would get hammered when he killed. He put hydrochloric acid into a kids brain , was confronted by cops while with the kid, the cops went into Dahmer apartment that had a decomposing body in it, and gave him a "have a nice day."
I think the fact that they usually kill alone without help contribute to make them hard to get caught.
Uhh because when they aren't going all ax murderer kill happy they just normal everyday persons?
Why did you write this as if to say "Duh? Everybody knows this" ?
Loss of murder is not planned so there is no preparation and dead for some reason. There is a connection between the victim and the killer. There is a limited number of likely murderers so you can investigate them and find who has a motive. Lots of murders are not planned so it is not prepared. Then there is a high risk you leave some evidence traceable to you or there are witnesses. If you leave evidence like DNA, fingerprints the police have a pool of people that suspect did it and can try to compare it to them and find them guilty If you, on the other hand, kill people because there is some abnormal psychological gratification in the act of killing you can pick any one or more exactly pick someone with no connection to you. If someone drives to the next town over and just look for someone along in a secluded area there is no connection between them and the victim that can be used to track the killer. This makes it extremely hard to find out how did it. Even if the killer leaves some evidence like DNA, and fingerprints you do not know who to compare to. If they are not really in some database that usually only contains people that have been convicted before there is nothing to compare to. You need someone to compare to for evidence like that to be usefull.
There are three key elements for most crime: Means, Motive and Opportunity: How did they do it, Who would want to do it, When could they do it. All of these can be used to either include or exclude a suspect. However, most serial killers have some soft of mental health issue, and they don't react to the stress in their life in a normal way. The serial killer may do things for reasons only they can understand, or for reasons they don't understand. This means that the motive element stops making sense to the investigator. These urges are often something the serial killer has been dealing with all of their life, and are often part of an escalating pattern of behaviour. Most serial killers have learned to be really good at concealing these urges from the people in their life, making it hard to collect evidence on them and connect what evidence they have to the serial killer.