Who is the worst serial killer

wakka12

Hannibal wrote: »

War can never justify the complete and utter destruction aimed of the civilian population which is what happened here. In the history of conflict there has never been more deliberate massacre of civilians.


I know the sentiment of the thread is probably looking for the lone wolf type serial killer but for me that atomic bombings is absolutely depraved.


As regards Irish serial killers, Larry Murphy springs to mind although never actually arrested or proven to have killed. There is also certain cartel leaders in Dubai who have ordered the murder of a lot of people in the last couple of years

Serial killing means theres a break between murders, not all killed in one mass killing like that. Yes its a terrible crime but thats not what the threads about at all

Franz Von Peppercorn

Bundy seems to fascinate some strange minds. Behind a supposed opposition to the death penalty you get people on the Netflix channel (in a discussion on a documentary on him) appalled at the killing of Bundy rather than the acts of Bundy.

For that reason I see him as one if the most dangerous serial killers.

And I don’t really get it. He’s not that articulate or smart in interviews.

LETHAL LADY

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Bundy seems to fascinate some strange minds. Behind a supposed opposition to the death penalty you get people on the Netflix channel (in a discussion on a documentary on him) appalled at the killing of Bundy rather than the acts of Bundy.

For that reason I see him as one if the most dangerous serial killers.

And I don’t really get it. He’s not that articulate or smart in interviews.

It's alluded to in the documentary he was manic depressive and suggests he deserved some mercy because of this. I'm no expert on Bundy but being a child in that era there was always suggestions there would be more useful information garnered from him being alive.

Drumpot

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Bundy seems to fascinate some strange minds. Behind a supposed opposition to the death penalty you get people on the Netflix channel (in a discussion on a documentary on him) appalled at the killing of Bundy rather than the acts of Bundy.

For that reason I see him as one if the most dangerous serial killers.

And I don’t really get it. He’s not that articulate or smart in interviews.

Before I say anything, for reference for anybody else, I was discussing the documentary in the Netflix forum and Franz ushered me here.

I can’t speak for others but I wasn’t appalled at the killing of Bundy, I just think we could of learned more from keeping him alive. I actually said I’m not sure where I stand on The death penalty so you must of missed that. I was horrified by what he did and how he was able to get away with it. I didn’t think it needed to be said TBH but I find it odd that you presume people somehow support or excuse what he did because they don’t share your exact interpretation or react exactly like you. You’ve made massive leaps and presumption because as you said “you don’t really get it”.

I think calling him evil is an emotive and over simplified way of describing Bundy or any seriel killer for that matter. You learn f*ck all with that sort of thinking. Sure why bother having a discussion if it’s that simple? He’s evil, kill him and never speak of him again.....

Society is very good at judging others and very bad at objectively judging itself. I don’t support the drunken celebrations, selling of t-shirts/keyrings of Bundy burning and fireworks that Bundy could hear just before he was put to his death. It’s unsettling because I thought we are supposed to be better then that? That’s not civilized no matter what way you want to justify it. I knew Bundy was going to die so wasn’t surprised by that. I didn’t know people treated his actual killing like a pre Super Bowl party in the car park!

Seriel killers are people. They aren’t some demon or possessed devil. By calling him evil you actually blow up his status/legend, the very thing you are supposedly trying to cut down. I don’t really see how you find Bundy dangerous because people enjoyed the documentary on him. He wasn’t glorified. You said it yourself he sabotaged his own chances in court! And now He’s dead. What exactly do you think is dangerous about him?

LETHAL LADY

Drumpot wrote: »

Before I say anything, for reference for anybody else, I was discussing the documentary in the Netflix forum and Franz ushered me here.

I can’t speak for others but I wasn’t appalled at the killing of Bundy, I just think we could of learned more from keeping him alive. I actually said I’m not sure where I stand on The death penalty so you must of missed that. I was horrified by what he did and how he was able to get away with it. I didn’t think it needed to be said TBH but I find it odd that you presume people somehow support or excuse what he did because they don’t share your exact interpretation or react exactly like you. You’ve made massive leaps and presumption because as you said “you don’t really get it”.

I think calling him evil is an emotive and over simplified way of describing Bundy or any seriel killer for that matter. You learn f*ck all with that sort of thinking. Sure why bother having a discussion if it’s that simple? He’s evil, kill him and never speak of him again.....

Society is very good at judging others and very bad at objectively judging itself. I don’t support the drunken celebrations, selling of t-shirts/keyrings of Bundy burning and fireworks that Bundy could hear just before he was put to his death. It’s unsettling because I thought we are supposed to be better then that? That’s not civilized no matter what way you want to justify it. I knew Bundy was going to die so wasn’t surprised by that. I didn’t know people treated his actual killing like a pre Super Bowl party in the car park!

Seriel killers are people. They aren’t some demon or possessed devil. By calling him evil you actually blow up his status/legend, the very thing you are supposedly trying to cut down. I don’t really see how you find Bundy dangerous because people enjoyed the documentary on him. He wasn’t glorified. You said it yourself he sabotaged his own chances in court! And now He’s dead. What exactly do you think is dangerous about him?

to

I'd be pragmatic enough to know he was an out and out chancer?

Ipso

Didn’t he do an interview where he blamed everything on porn, which just happened to match the thoughts of the interviewee.
Trying to learn something from him would have been a game of whack a mole.

Gimme A Pound

Sometimes it's just the individual and not because of society. Maybe family - but not always even that either.

gimli2112

I read the other day there was noticeable fear in Bundy's eyes the day of his execution. I'm not a fan of the death penalty but this made me happy.

Joe Don Dante

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness

Trump Is Right

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

It's alluded to in the documentary he was manic depressive and suggests he deserved some mercy because of this. I'm no expert on Bundy but being a child in that era there was always suggestions there would be more useful information garnered from him being alive.

There was a time in history, when a swift execution was actually considered the more merciful punishment... rather than existing on bread and water inside some rat-infested dungeon for how ever long it took to die naturally!

I actually still think it can be the more humane option, rather than giving someone a 300 year sentence - as they frequently do in the USA etc.

And my opinion on this is often strengthened, when I hear many people talking about the death penalty by saying such things as "Death is too good for him... let him rot inside a prison cell for the rest of his days"

So even among the so-called more liberal minded folk, who claim to be appalled by capital punishment... these same people actually consider life sentences to be the MORE severe punishment, and in fact seem to revel in the cruelty of seeing someone rot away for decades in a prison cell...

I imagine Bundy being executed, must have been very satisfying for his victims families... because Bundy was someone who clearly seemed to enjoy the attention that came with being a famous killer. I think you could see the disappointment in Bundy's face, when he knew not only his life was about to end... but the curtain was also coming down on his final theatrical performance... I'm genuinely not sure which was the bigger disappointment to him!

In that sense, the death penalty was certainly a merciful act for his victims families... they did not have to endure decades of Bundy the celebrity killer, doing interviews or book deals etc.

Wibbs

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

And I don’t really get it. He’s not that articulate or smart in interviews.

The context of the time is an element of it F. Today with cameras everywhere and many people living lives as an extended interview through social media, more people are much more comfortable with interviews, especially on camera. Back then most froze like rabbits in the headlights when a microphone and camera was thrust into their faces. You even see this with famous people in their early interviews before they get used to it. Look at old footage of something like the Late Late Show or Vox pops on the street and most ordinary people tend to come across at best nervous, or like they were dropped on their heads as children. Bundy was relaxed in front of cameras. That was rare enough and would have come across as articulate and confident. Especially so considering the horrendous crimes he was accused of. It could easily be perceived as charisma.

eagle eye

Bundy had to die probably more than any other serial killer in history. He was constantly in the the news with appeal after appeal. He never showed any remorse for what he did until right near the end which imo was a desperate ploy to lengthen his life.
The families of his victims would have struggled for closure until he died.

shamrock55

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Ramadan Mansour, Egyptian serial killer who tortured and killed homeless children, all boys under 14, on the rooftops of trains traveling between Cairo and Alexandria. Their bodies were thrown from the trains meaning the discoveries were many hundreds of miles apart hampering investigations.

He was nicknamed 'al-Tourbini' meaning 'Express Train'

The details of his crimes are sickening. He was eventually caught and executed by hanging in 2010

Aren't those train rooftops usually packed with people, how did he get away with it?

shamrock55

Joe Don Dante wrote: »

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness

May aswell add Nelson Mandela to the list so

Here we go

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Joe o Reilly and Graham dwyer. Two arrogant murders who are so dillussional they still think they will walk free.

Think Dwyer has a shot at walking. Was suppressed he went down for it. (I think he's guilty.) but no cause of death no murder weapon and only real evidence is initials G.D and phone records. And he's got Europe to throw out the phone records out for his appeal.

Discodog

Bryce Warm Ship wrote: »

The missus was worse! You'd need to bleach your brain and your soul after reading their Wikipedia page.

Ángel Maturino Resiz, aka The Railway Killer, was pretty terrifying. I usually find serial killer stuff pretty fascinating but I'd to stop listening to a podcast about him. One of those guys on a "divine mission" to rape and bludgeon people to death.

There is an excellent Podcast called Dead Man Talking about him.

Drumpot

Trump Is Right wrote: »

There was a time in history, when a swift execution was actually considered the more merciful punishment... rather than existing on bread and water inside some rat-infested dungeon for how ever long it took to die naturally!

I actually still think it can be the more humane option, rather than giving someone a 300 year sentence - as they frequently do in the USA etc.

And my opinion on this is often strengthened, when I hear many people talking about the death penalty by saying such things as "Death is too good for him... let him rot inside a prison cell for the rest of his days"

So even among the so-called more liberal minded folk, who claim to be appalled by capital punishment... these same people actually consider life sentences to be the MORE severe punishment, and in fact seem to revel in the cruelty of seeing someone rot away for decades in a prison cell...

I imagine Bundy being executed, must have been very satisfying for his victims families... because Bundy was someone who clearly seemed to enjoy the attention that came with being a famous killer. I think you could see the disappointment in Bundy's face, when he knew not only his life was about to end... but the curtain was also coming down on his final theatrical performance... I'm genuinely not sure which was the bigger disappointment to him!

In that sense, the death penalty was certainly a merciful act for his victims families... they did not have to endure decades of Bundy the celebrity killer, doing interviews or book deals etc.

Yeh I’m in this camp to a degree. I don’t understand those who defend life sentences versus death penalty from a “which is more humane” POV. I think there are merits for it , particularly for people who clearly will never integrate into society and continue to kill or rape. Prison isn’t about rehabilitation , it’s about trying to deter and to provide a counter balance to a crime. Locking somebody up for decades until they die doesn’t seem as humane as putting them down like you would a dog who keeps biting people.

There seem to be a power craving complex at the core of these kind of people. I know many of them use violent sex to gain this power. But It would make sense that a higher proportion of those with ambitions and less empathy then the average person would make it to the top of major corporations and politics. I don’t believe you can do that while not stepping on others or bending normal moral standards. Lack of empathy helps the higher up you go. I believe I heard it before that you get a proportionately higher amount of psychopaths high up in major organizations. In many regards they have power and can act with impunity as there are plenty of abuses in business that are considered part and parcel of the game.

If we didn’t have a World with such bountiful opportunities for these kind of people to exploit, maybe more would turn to killing to get their power cravings satiated. I would say if the masks dropped on everybody we would all get a serious shock when we see what people are really like deep down. Because we are shallow and fickle species there is a certain portion of of anger that’s embarrassmen and fear that we fell for wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Seth Brundle

Drumpot wrote: »

Yeh I’m in this camp to a degree. I don’t understand those who defend life sentences versus death penalty from a “which is more humane” POV. I think there are merits for it , particularly for people who clearly will never integrate into society and continue to kill or rape. Prison isn’t about rehabilitation , it’s about trying to deter and to provide a counter balance to a crime. Locking somebody up for decades until they die doesn’t seem as humane as putting them down like you would a dog who keeps biting people.

Yeah because what's the worst that could happen if we had the death penalty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LYiAEV_XnA

Drumpot

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Yeah because what's the worst that could happen if we had the death penalty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LYiAEV_XnA

That’s one major negative that I won’t dispute, the issue of making sure it’s the right person being caught for the from. But it’s doesn’t nullify every other counter argument. It’s like saying people who are sent into jail often become more violent and more dangerous when released so maybe we shouldn’t put them in jail. Overall locking anybody up for decades for them to wilt and die is not humane.

Seth Brundle

So because prison isn't humane let's just kill them instead???

Drumpot

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So because prison isn't humane let's just kill them instead???

I never said that.

If we have a person who is irrefutably a repeat killer/rapist (eg caught on camera) and it’s clear they will Keep killing/raping so they can’t ever integrate back into society do You think it’s more humane to lock them up for the rest of their lives or to put them down?

timthumbni

shamrock55 wrote: »

May aswell add Nelson Mandela to the list so

And Michael stone and Lennie Murphy.

Seth Brundle

Drumpot wrote: »

I never said that.

If we have a person who is irrefutably a repeat killer/rapist (eg caught on camera) and it’s clear they will Keep killing/raping so they can’t ever integrate back into society do You think it’s more humane to lock them up for the rest of their lives or to put them down?

Define caught on camera.
I showed you an example of two men who were convicted of rape and murder one of whom was 5 days away from being "put down".
Two others were also shown to have confessed on camera for another murder. But they too didn't do it.
Look at the Birmingham six, Maguire seven, Guilford four, etc. These days their confessions would be taped. Should they have been put down?
There is never a justification for taking a life As a form of justice because the risk of an innocent person being killed is too high. It is estimated that in the US four percent of death row inmates are innocent.
Also why would you want to kill the convicted prisoner? For the general public to feel safe (is prison not keeping the people safe?)? For the victim's family to get closure (studies suggest this is not the case)?

Discodog

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Define caught on camera.
I showed you an example of two men who were convicted of rape and murder one of whom was 5 days away from being "put down".
Two others were also shown to have confessed on camera for another murder. But they too didn't do it.
Look at the Birmingham six, Maguire seven, Guilford four, etc. These days their confessions would be taped. Should they have been put down?
There is never a justification for taking a life As a form of justice because the risk of an innocent person being killed is too high. It is estimated that in the US four percent of death row inmates are innocent.
Also why would you want to kill the convicted prisoner? For the general public to feel safe (is prison not keeping the people safe?)? For the victim's family to get closure (studies suggest this is not the case)?

I suspect it's higher than that. The US justice system is atrocious.

Drumpot

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Define caught on camera.
I showed you an example of two men who were convicted of rape and murder one of whom was 5 days away from being "put down".
Two others were also shown to have confessed on camera for another murder. But they too didn't do it.
Look at the Birmingham six, Maguire seven, Guilford four, etc. These days their confessions would be taped. Should they have been put down?
There is never a justification for taking a life As a form of justice because the risk of an innocent person being killed is too high. It is estimated that in the US four percent of death row inmates are innocent.
Also why would you want to kill the convicted prisoner? For the general public to feel safe (is prison not keeping the people safe?)? For the victim's family to get closure (studies suggest this is not the case)?

Why do you think it’s more humane to lock somebody up for life then put them down? The issue of innocent people is one issue that doesn’t address the moral question of which is more humane.

I don’t think either is particularly humane but dragging out a persons life so they rot in prison seems more sadistic then putting them out of their misery. I’ve said it already, I’m not sure where I stand on this topic, but I think your reluctance to even discuss hypothetical scenarios a sign that we aren’t meant to discuss this in any meaningful way.

Drumpot

Discodog wrote: »

I suspect it's higher than that. The US justice system is atrocious.

Particularly if you are black.

Seth Brundle

Drumpot wrote: »

Why do you think it’s more humane to lock somebody up for life then put them down? The issue of innocent people is one issue that doesn’t address the moral question of which is more humane.

I don’t think either is particularly humane but dragging out a persons life so they rot in prison seems more sadistic then putting them out of their misery. I’ve said it already, I’m not sure where I stand on this topic, but I think your reluctance to even discuss hypothetical scenarios a sign that we aren’t meant to discuss this in any meaningful way.

Read Paddy Armstrong's biography.
He has been there. He is enjoying his life now with his family.
His book finishes with:

I am many things, but I remain intact.
Unbroken.
And I have a life after life.

Seth Brundle

...anyway were gone off topic. We should be discussing serial killers rather than the death penalty.

branie2

Jeffrey Dahmer. He had body parts all over his flat

TerrorFirmer

Fred and Rose West is the most disturbing to me, the enormous complicity between the pair in enthusiastically pursing such depraved, sadistic pleasures....not to mention the horrifyingly dysfunctional family life they sought to completely normalise their children to, that was allowed to continue for so, so long without any real external investigation or interruption.

Abducting, murdering, prostituting and raping their own children, with a wide array of willing accomplices and lodgers to boot.

The whole story just beggars belief that it could happen, for so long, and involving so many people.