Just an observation... BTK killer

[Rebecca 0]

I've been reading a few articles on Yahoo about this guy Rader who seems to be the real deal complete with corroborating life details and a confession.

All the reporters, as they always do, have been interviewing everyone who knows him. He's been in the Wichita community for over 30 years - ushering at church, leading Cub Scouts, and other wholesome things.

Among those interviewed are people who just can't believe it, who never saw "the face of evil" on him, who never would have thought...

There are also those who got very creeped out by him. He would video people's homes to catch them in an infraction of the neighborhood rules, and harrass people about the length of grass on their lawns. Not that that's serial killer behavior, but one woman pulled her child out of his troop (or church class) because his demeanor weirded her out.

This guy's been doing his thing since '74 - and no one knew.

Why? Do most people want to believe in the good / what things seem to be? Is it just easier to pretend it's far away from you and that the guy next to you in the pew couldn't possibly be pure evil because he's in church? Or are these killers (like Dahmer, Bundy, Rader) just that good at pretending?

Have we gotten so out of touch with ourselves and our instincts that we would sooner trust our eyes than our intuition?

Probably a little of column A, a little of column B...

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[dorbie 0]

Or maybe there are too many weirdos to worry about and almost none of them are serial killers. In fact by all accounts even normal looking folks might be serial killers so it's probably not true that serial killers reliably present as weirdos.

How many weirdos do you know? Do you think they consider you weird? Do you think they're serial killers? Are you a serial killer? If not then when did you stop being a serial killer?

[Rebecca 0]

I'm not saying it should have been obvious, but I am suggesting that we, as a society, don't really pay that much attention to those around us for a variety of reasons.

We treasure our privacy, live and let live, it's rude to stare, don't intrude, he/she/they go to church, intuition is hokey, etc. all add up to an environment where someone can kill people and get away with it for 30 years.

What if we just opened our eyes a little wider and took our gut feelings a little more seriously?

(I'm not talking about an informant society, but more of a neighborhood watch)


Weirdos are one thing, but haven't you ever gotten a bad vibe or a shiver or an internal alarm sounding around certain people?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[dorbie 0]

It sounds like this guy would have been the first to join your neighbourhood watch scheme.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

We treasure our privacy...

I think we should.

If the price of that is that folks don't dig into their neighbors affairs, and discover them to be criminals (of whatever stripe), or just plain "weird" (which appelation might be used to describe all kinds of folks), I'll pay that price.

Personally, I think it's a blessing that most Americans are respectful enough that they won't discover a neighbor who smokes pot in the basement, or has sexual fetishes, or whatever.

What was it Justice Brandeis said?

"The right most prized by civilized men is the right to be let alone."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AndyMan 7]

I think there's a fairly large group of people out there who think in polarities. When people in this group think of another person, they pigeon-hole that person as someone who's inheriently good, or inheriently evil.

Personally, I see elements of traits like that in critics of politicians, and posters to this forum. The idea that people are inheriently good or evil, with no inbetween.

If one of these people has reason to think someone else is good - say, because they go to the same church, they must be "Good People". Such a person couldn't possibly be capable of committing something like that, to consider it is really not even an option.

Likewise, such a person might look at a gay man, knowing that their church labels gay people as sinners, which makes that gay man evil. The gay man is then the prime suspect whenever a child gets molested, or someone gets raped or murdered.

Stereotype is not restricted to race.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

It sounds like this guy would have been the first to join your neighbourhood watch scheme.

I agree. Not only that, he would have been welcomed in open arms, and still just as "succesful" and never questioned.

Iinnocence by association makes as little sense as the guilty equivalent.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What if we just opened our eyes a little wider and took our gut feelings a little more seriously?

We'd catch a few more bad guys, and we'd all hate our neighbors. I don't see it as a big improvement to view any non conformity (effectively what it would become) with suspicion.

This guy is a serial killer, but he strikes what, 10 times over 30 years? That pace is a bit atypical - hard to catch a single person when it's years between events and you're not even sure they're related. I don't think there is a lesson to be learned.

[Rebecca 0]

Eh, it's not just serial killers. It's stuff like those child-abusing bastards from FL, and wife-beating A-holes, and dog-beating cowards.

They all have neighbors, for the most part. I'm not a snoop, but I'd notice if my neighbor's little kid had a black eye. That's all. That way, if I saw it again, a warning flag would go up.

Again, I'm not saying we should all snoop and stick our noses where they don't belong, but maybe we could take our blinders off.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[happythoughts 0]

For the movie, Silence of the Lambs, the character of Jack Crawford is modeled on real life serial killer hunter John Douglas. He was head of the real FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit and served as a consultant on the movie.

One of the first distinct definitions of a serial killer is organized/disorganized. It tells a lot about the killer, their habits and their mental state.

An organized killer is, well, organized. They plan their crime carefully. The first sign is bringing "tools" to the crime scene. Knives, tape, gloves, whatever is necessary. They may observe the victim over a period of time. They may plan the crime scene by location, ease of detection, and escape routes. Many times, they live in a community for a long time before being detected. The Green River killings went on for years also. Some organized killers prey on prostitutes because their lifestyle makes their disappearance less noticeable.

Disorganized killers are driven by rage and emotion. They usually have a disheveled appearance that degrades as their mental state does. Eventually, they cannot function in society and make an obvious mistake.

The FBI estimates that there are between 75 and 125 active serial killers roaming the US at any time.

This guy sounds like he got caught because he "wanted to" in a fashion. He was taunting the police with his "trophies", drivers licenses and crime scene photos. He was taunting them with how he had outsmarted them all these years. To take credit for his ability, he would have to get caught.

[MC208B 0]

Good, informative post.

I just wonder why and how someone could find pleasure in hurting/killing others.

I wonder if this killer even knows the answer to that?!?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There are also those who got very creeped out by him. He would video people's homes to catch them in an infraction of the neighborhood rules, and harrass people about the length of grass on their lawns.

I've heard that was his job - he was a city code enforcement inspector.

But even that is weird compared with his murderous behavior: He was so picky and insistent about conformance with laws regarding the upkeep of property, and at the same time so disregarding of the right to life in others...

Fry the bastard.

[slug 1]

Power and control freak

R.I.P.

[Michele 1]

Quote

But even that is weird compared with his murderous behavior: He was so picky and insistent about conformance with laws regarding the upkeep of property, and at the same time so disregarding of the right to life in others...

Not really. If you consider the control aspect of both his daily work and his killings (Bind, Torture, Kill), it makes perfect, albeit creepy, sense.

And I thought he was the dog catcher...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

And I thought he was the dog catcher...

The "triad" of the serial killer profile.

One does not just decide one day that he wants to be a serial killer. It has a grooming process. It is the process of creating the mental structure with missing links and incorrect compensations.

Some people are bed-wetters late in life. Some are arsonists and enjoy setting fires. Some do cruel things to small animals as children. Almost all serial killers do all three. That is the triad. It is like a set of switches that need to be thrown.

To think that a serial killer worked as an animal control person is horrifying because of what must have gone on.

His name was Bind, Torture, Kill (BTK).

Being cruel to small animals at an early age does several things. It de-sensitizes them to the suffering of living beings. Later, they progress from animals to people.

It develops their desire for control (bind) and helps them vent their anger (torture, kill). They make the living suffer.

Once the person becomes completely desensitized (a sociopath), they recognize no feelings except for their own. All people/animals are objects.

[Rebecca 0]

Thanks for your posts, Bill.
I also read an analysis which, among the aspects you already mentioned, also lists that the profile-fitting serial killers are almost always losers in life.

They fail to achieve power through a professional or other socially acceptable outlet, which would make them 'winners', but they crave and need control/power, so they find another outlet and become all powerful winners (in their minds) that way.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[slug 1]

Quote

They fail to achieve power through a professional or other socially acceptable outlet, which would make them 'winners', but they crave and need control/power, so they find another outlet and become all powerful winners (in their minds) that way.

Could explain why he wasn't active for a long time

He found power thru his Church & Boy scout leadership, and his job as a Code "Enforcement" supervisor.

Eventually his legit success wasn't enough, and the beast took over

R.I.P.

[Rebecca 0]

Those things couldn't compare to the "glory" of having command over the freedom, pain, and life of another person though. Maybe you're right and it was enough for a short while. Is it known yet, whether he acted out on the animals he was catching? That's usually a childhood pre-murder activity, but if he was frustrated...

They're now starting to look at cold cases in surrounding areas to find any possible MO matches. They've got one so far.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Power and control freak.

Yep, I think you're right. That's the connection between the two things. He apparently got a kick out of ruling over others and being able to punish them.

Even an 11-year-old girl...

[slug 1]

Quote

Those things couldn't compare to the "glory" of having command over the freedom, pain, and life of another person though. Maybe you're right and it was enough for a short while. Is it known yet, whether he acted out on the animals he was catching? That's usually a childhood pre-murder activity, but if he was frustrated....

Hi Rebecca

I think the time line was:

When BTK started his power trip he was young and a little fish in a big pond. Remember the quote "How many people do I have to kill before you notice me"

During the time BTK was dorment he was climbing the "straight" path to power and control. We don't know how long he was a "dog catcher" but that comes under the code enforcement dept.

BTK ended up as a supervisor in that dept Code enforcement for a city and being a supervisor over other employee's

Now BTK is reaching his golden years and was probably looking at retirement from his day job & boy scouts, so no more people to boss around.

The beast needed to be fed. Some people can enjoy being retired Now he's in a position of zero control. Next stop suicide? To show everyone that he left on his terms.

R.I.P.

[Rebecca 0]

He was ready to be caught.

That 'beast' is stronger than him - he had to operate on those terms: bind, torture, kill, write a letter, boast, lead the police to him.

He himself likely lacked the will or strength to simply turn himself in or commit suicide. Now that he's in custody, he's able to confess.

Does that make sense?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[slug 1]

Quote

He was ready to be caught.

That 'beast' is stronger than him - he had to operate on those terms: bind, torture, kill, write a letter, boast, lead the police to him.

He himself likely lacked the will or strength to simply turn himself in or commit suicide. Now that he's in custody, he's able to confess.

Does that make sense?

yep

But IMO suicide is still on the table BTK can still take himself out when he gets the chance. To show that he's still in control of the situation even after he got the recognition he wanted.

A control freak in prison for life or waiting for execution where he has no control is going to be.

Unless he can find peace in religion or meds.

R.I.P.

[happythoughts 0]

The book Stranger beside me by Anne Rule is based on events in the life of serial killer Ted Bundy.

At one point, he was arrested and interrogated. Being the center of attention fed his feeling of being in control. Everyone was listening to his every word.

As grotesque as it seems, it does lead to a good conclusion. Serial killers provide information that aids in their conviction. Bundy didn't provide much information because of his time as a law student in Utah and he knew how to manipulate the system.

Prison has its own rules and social structure. Some killers do well in prison because they are so dyfunctional that they easily adapt to being at the bottom of the social ladder. Some are schizophrenic and any set of rules is impossible for them to work within. They are usually killed in prison by other prisoners.

The book is a fascinating read. A common element for almost all sk is the building of a fantasy of "perfection". Many kill in a ritualistic fashion to create that illusion. Bundy started his killing spree after his "perfect" g/f dumped him.

Ted Bundy was remarkably successful outwardly, but inside he was a nest of snakes.

In college, he studied Mandarin, played near pro-level golf, and attended law school. He was interested in politics and was the driver for a man running to be governor of Washington state. Not dysfunctional at all.

He once saw a purse snatcher and ran the person down and held them for police.

Ted ended his killing spree here in Florida.