nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why was there so many crazy serial killers around in the 70s and 80s?

badabing106

All the most deranged and notorious serial killers did their killing in the 70s and 80s

Gacy, kemper, Bundy, Chikatilo, Ramirez, Pedro Lopez, Koll

And why did this trend stop? Does this stuff still happen but doesn't make same kind of headlines because of the internet?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sheridan81

Jonybgud wrote: »

But if you think about it rationally, they are evenly distributed throughout society worldwide.

If you think about it rationally, it would be an extraordinary coincidence if they were evenly distributed throughout society worldwide. Some countries have little history of producing what would be described, in exact terms, a serial killer.

No offence to anyone, but there is a lot of ignorance in this thread; I have studied serial killers, and it would be inaccurate to suggest that they were primarily a trend of the seventies and eighties which has died out with time, as the OP suggests.

If anyone is interested in true crime, PM me; as I have a lot of cheap books for sale on the subject.

Jonybgud

Sheridan81 wrote: »

If you think about it rationally, it would be an extraordinary coincidence if they were evenly distributed throughout society worldwide. Some countries have little history of producing what would be described, in exact terms, a serial killer.

Just because they are not known doesn't mean they are not there.

Follow the figures. How many people go missing every year? People go missing from every society every year. Granted not all are the victims of murder, but if you take a small percentage as being the victims of killers and a small percentage of those as being the victims of multiple killings then the amount of serial killers out there undetected are staggeringly frightening. Just because you don't know them, don't mean they are not there., just my ignorant opinion though...

Sheridan81

Jonybgud wrote: »

Just because they are not known doesn't mean they are not there.

Follow the figures. How many people go missing every year?

I don't know. Why don't you provide figures for each country in the world?

I reiterate: it would be an astonishing coincidence for serial killers to be 'evenly distributed' worldwide, especially considering there are countries out there who don't have a single fully proven case of a serial killer on record.

Whether they are detected or not is irrelevant. Does every society have an evenly distributed quota of missing persons? No.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

That's an infuriating watch, we're seeing Ted Bundy through the lens of someone pushing an agenda re pornography. Bundy says at the start of the interview he'd not come to terms with being executed in a matter of hours, and this was, I think, an attempt to get leniency.

Bundy was a psychopath and an extremely clever manipulator. He's winding yer man like a well oiled watch. He was always working an angle and well clever enough to make most of it stick. He's hitting all the buttons that wind up Middle America, especially in the 80's. Porn, alcohol, sex even though he came from a "christian family". Yer man is lapping it up.

Jonybgud

Sheridan81 wrote: »

I don't know. Why don't you provide figures for each country in the world?

Very silly comment, how do you expect anyone to produce figures for a category of person whose mission it is to keep their actions covert?

Sheridan81 wrote: »

it would be an astonishing coincidence for serial killers to be 'evenly distributed' worldwide, especially considering there are countries out there who don't have a single fully proven case of a serial killer on record.

Oh well, there you go, if it's not 'fully proven' it doesn't exist!

SK's are predators, preying on the vulnerable, I would say that the societies with the capabilities of detecting such predators will have the more accurately recorded figures for them above the societies who do not record them at all, obviously.

I think it would be astonishing if each society hadn't got a fairly even distribution of these predators.

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Whether they are detected or not is irrelevant. Does every society have an evenly distributed quota of missing persons? No.

Actually I would say more or less, yes, most every society has a fairly evenly distributed quota of missing persons lost to SK's. We are just not aware of it, but that is just my opinion.

[Deleted User]

Bill 2.0 wrote: »

he considered himself the smartest guy in any room.

He was in that interview anyway. At about 28 minutes and 20/30 seconds in I think the mask slips for only a millisecond. He gives a brief look up through his eyebrow to try and gauge if Dr what's his name is buying it. Superficially Bundy hand 'found Jesus', but I think he was very calculating in that interview, easier to notice when asked about the little girl. He knew talking about that in any way was not a going to come across well.

[Deleted User]

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Some countries have little history of producing what would be described, in exact terms, a serial killer.

And what's your reasoning for that?

America is a pretty open country information wise, has been for years. I find it staggering to think anyone would believe this doesn't go on in lots of countries. The US has only a relatively small % of the world population. We are westernised and are familiar with the likes of Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper. Do you honestly think there hasn't been equally prolific serial killers in, say, India, China or Peru.

Instead of selling those books, you might want to ask for a refund.

[Deleted User]

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Whether they are detected or not is irrelevant. Does every society have an evenly distributed quota of missing persons? No.

God, I hope you're being semantic.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Bundy was a psychopath and an extremely clever manipulator. He's winding yer man like a well oiled watch. He was always working an angle and well clever enough to make most of it stick. He's hitting all the buttons that wind up Middle America, especially in the 80's. Porn, alcohol, sex even though he came from a "christian family". Yer man is lapping it up.

Exactly, agree fully. He was so good I can see how some people would have fallen for it. It's telling that he hand picked your man from countless (I'm being figurative Sheridan81) of journalists.

One question I had from that, considering he's quite likely a psychopath - he defended his parents and family at every step. Was that genuine or was it just playing into the Christian thing, 'I was brought up well in a Christian house, but I fell foul of the evils of pornography which put me on the road of temptation.' I'm leaning towards the latter the more I think of it. We may know more about his family life subsequent to the 1989 interview.

Sheridan81

Jonybgud wrote: »

Very silly comment, how do you expect anyone to produce figures for a category of person whose mission it is to keep their actions covert?

I was responding to your request for me to 'follow the figures' of missing persons. If you want me to do so, please provide said figures and tell me how this proves equal distribution of murderers in every society worldwide. Nothing silly about my comment at all...

Jonybgud wrote: »

Follow the figures. How many people go missing every year?

Oh well, there you go, if it's not 'fully proven' it doesn't exist!

SK's are predators, preying on the vulnerable, I would say that the societies with the capabilities of detecting such predators will have the more accurately recorded figures for them above the societies who do not record them at all, obviously.

To think rationally, one must base reasoning on available evidence, research and study. To say that serial killers are 'thinking rationally, evenly distributed in every society' you have to explain your rationale. Not just say 'lots of people go missing, and just cause they're not caught doesn't mean they don't exist'. That is conjecture; it is actually illogical to suggest that they are 'evenly distributed'. What, in society, is actually 'evenly distributed'? Does every country have the same number of blonde-haired people? The same number of rats? Rhetorical questions, by the way.

I think it would be astonishing if each society hadn't got a fairly even distribution of these predators.

Actually I would say more or less, yes, most every society has a fairly evenly distributed quota of missing persons lost to SK's. We are just not aware of it, but that is just my opinion.

So now you've gone from 'evenly' to 'fairly even'. Which is it? And how are you defining 'society', is it your synonym for 'country'?

No.---%

Pop.share--Ratio
United States

3,204--67.58---4.35%

15.53
Australia

81---1.71

0.33%

5.23
England

166--3.50

0.71%

4.92
Canada

106---2.24

0.49%

4.59
Scotland

15---0.32

0.07%

4.45
S. Africa

117--2.47

0.74%

3.34
Italy

97---2.05

0.80%

2.55
Germany

85---1.79

1.08%

1.66
Japan

96---2.02

1.70%

1.19

Bottom:
Russia

1.54----1.93%----0.80
Mexico

0.78----1.73%----0.45
Brazil

0.57----2.81%----0.20
India

1.69----17.81%---0.09
China

1.20----18.56%---0.06

Above are some stats, showing the highest and lowest ratios of serial killers per country, according to one American-based study; thus it is probably skewed, with an American slant. Caution should be taken in reviewing this table as the number of serial killers by country is a function of the number of actual killers, the number caught, and the number reported by police or the media. I'd bet Russia, for instance, has a higher tally. Note: Serial killers operating in multiple countries are not included. Source:Radford University/FGCU Serial Killer Database September 4, 2016

http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20Statistics.pdf

According to other studies carried out by this Uni, there were 2324 documented victims of serial killers in the USA in the 90s & 1451 documented victims in the USA in the noughties, compared to 1884 documented victims in the USA in the 70s; so not a humongous differential. Montana is the state with least amount of serial killers, California has the most, whilst Louisiana has an unusually high percentage.

According to some studies, modern life makes it easier for serial killers to evade capture. Some estimates put the number of active serial killers in the US at 2000. There has been a decline in serial murder in the US since the early nineties, but this has apparently coincided with a decline in the solubility of murder cases:

https://www.livescience.com/62431-how-many-serial-killers-free.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/10/are-serial-killers-more-common-than-we-think/596647/

https://www.vox.com/2016/12/2/13803158/serial-killers-victims-data

I am not sure of the accuracy of this research but it is better than nothing. This all ignores the data from other countries, which haven't exhaustively researched the phenomenon as much as the US, either through laziness, ignorance, self-image concern, or lack of necessity.

Some serial killers have become very sophisticated in their methods; Israel Keyes for example, who would plant a hit-kit at various locations around America, and travel great distances to kill random strangers.

It also paints a rosy picture of a pre-seventies world in America; a far rosier vista than it deserves; for then we had the likes of Belle Gunness, Albert Fish, H.H. Holmes, Jane Toppan, Charles Schmid, Lydia Southard, Carl Panzram, Jerry Brudos, The Texarkana Phantom Killer, The Axeman Of New Orleans, the Mad Killer of Sacramento, the Cleveland Torso Killer, etc. and I'd guess, rather than such a hefty divergence in the number of killings, it was a lack of detection and publicity which accounted for the disparity. A case of brushing things under the carpet and wrapping murders up with the first available solution to make the local sheriff look good.

Then there were the old montrous legends-Gilles De Rais, Countess Bathory, Jack The Ripper etc.

I do not like the FBI's current definition which seems to be 'two or more kills etc'. I preferred the old standard of 'three or more kills'.

There were many interesting serial killers after the seventies/eighties-

Alexander Pichushkin, who would count his victims on a chessboard.
Anatoly Onoprienko, who annihilated entire families to make up for the lack of his familial comforts.
Juana Barraza, who was a female pro-wrestler in Mexico.
Joanna Dennehy, unusual in her methods for a female.
Ivan Milat, sort of an inspiration for Wolf Creek.

Derrick Todd Lee, Mark Goodeau, Ronald Dominique, Maury Travis, Stephen Griffiths, Moses Sithole, Michel Fourniret, the cross-dressing Paul Denyer, torture chamber lover David Parker Ray, wannabe musician Danny Rolling etc. but modern culture has become immune to violence and frankly bored of the whole thing.

Incidentally, Ireland's biggest serial killer, not that he has much competition, was allegedly a man by the name of Kieran Kelly.

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-secret-serial-killer-kieran-kelly-london-murders

Wibbs wrote: »

Bundy was a psychopath and an extremely clever manipulator.

He really wasn't that clever; I believe he was expelled for mediocre grades and he even introduced himself as 'Ted' when attempting to abduct females; a very stupid thing to do.

Sheridan81

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Some countries have little history of producing what would be described, in exact terms, a serial killer.
.

Deleted User wrote: »

And what's your reasoning for that?

A little thing called 'available evidence'. You might want to give it a try sometime.

Countries have different murder rates and they have varying numbers of serial killers on record; some have relatively little history of the serial killer phenomenon: Iceland, Ireland & the Phillipines for example.

It is one thing to say they are going undetected, but serial killers are also going undetected in countries who already have large amounts of documented cases, so what difference does it make? One bases an argument on evidence and the evidence of probability; not probability alone.

The prime causes of serial killing, I think, is incurable psychopathy, childhood abuse, loneliness, poverty and/or an overpopulated environment; studies have shown what happens amongst rats when in an over-crowded environ; they attack each other, I believe. Thus, so it is with the human fiend.

[Deleted User]

Sheridan81 wrote: »

A little thing called 'available evidence'. You might want to give it a try sometime.

Countries have different murder rates and they have varying numbers of serial killers on record; some have relatively little history of the serial killer phenomenon: Iceland, Ireland & the Phillipines for example.

It is one thing to say they are going undetected, but serial killers are also going undetected in countries who already have large amounts of documented cases, so what difference does it make? One bases an argument on evidence and the evidence of probability; not probability alone.

The prime causes of serial killing, I think, is incurable psychopathy, childhood abuse, loneliness, poverty and/or an overpopulated environment; studies have shown what happens amongst rats when in an over-crowded environ; they attack each other, I believe. Thus, so it is with the human fiend.

Bold is key. You even listed some of the issues with the stats you referenced further above. Most of the prime causes you listed are far from unique to the US.

In Ireland we've certainly got an undetected serial killer. We've only a population of approx 4m. 1 serial killer here would be the approx equivalent of 100 in the US.

Sheridan81

Available evidence v unsubstantiated conjecture?

I know what side I'm on, thank you.

[Deleted User]

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Available evidence v unsubstantiated conjecture?

I know what side I'm on, thank you.

The side that is overly researched versus a lot more where there is no research or is suppressed.

Newsflash, Since the invention of the police force arrests have sky rocketed :pac:

Wibbs

Sheridan81 wrote: »

He really wasn't that clever; I believe he was expelled for mediocre grades and he even introduced himself as 'Ted' when attempting to abduct females; a very stupid thing to do.

The mediocre grades thing gives little indication of overall cleverness. Many's the bookish straight A type that overall are as thick as two short planks and many's the highly successful in life type who got crap marks in school. They almost always have a very high emotional intelligence(EQ). The Ted aspect was thick alright, the towering ego of the psychopath at work I'd imagine, or some low down glimmer of remorse of sorts, of the need to stop and be caught. He could have gotten away with it so many times, even quite deep into his murderous rampage. Towards the end he got crazily sloppy. In a couple of his interviews while awaiting execution he gives the impression he was shocked how long it took the authorities to catch him.

His ability to be very personable to his victims, family and friends and many others to the degree that even after the guilty verdict so many still thought him innocent or misunderstood shows some pretty impressive innate understanding of human psychology and how to work it to his favour. This is a guy that was able to get his girlfriend pregnant in a maximum security facility after his guilty verdict. That's a high level EQ going on, minus the basic not raping and butchering young women humanity part of course.

Was he some great genius? No. He was a psychopathic predator with a very high social and emotional intelligence. A really bad mix. The social oddballs tend to be easier to spot and catch. And we expect those types. I think that's one reason he fascinated and frightened so many.

[Deleted User]

smelly sock wrote: »

Larry Murphy.

I think even (rightly so) litigious careful boards.ie may be happy to let that there. Zero chance that individual would bring a legal case, but only my opinion.

patmac

There is a theory that 3% of all business leaders are psychos. I have worked with at least two.
They are probably successful because of there lack of empathy and that they have no regard for fellow work colleagues. Lots of online articles https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-do/201808/5-ways-successfully-deal-workplace-psychopath

Sheridan81

Wibbs wrote: »

The mediocre grades thing gives little indication of overall cleverness. Many's the bookish straight A type that overall are as thick as two short planks and many's the highly successful in life type who got crap marks in school. They almost always have a very high emotional intelligence(EQ). The Ted aspect was thick alright, the towering ego of the psychopath at work I'd imagine, or some low down glimmer of remorse of sorts, of the need to stop and be caught. He could have gotten away with it so many times, even quite deep into his murderous rampage. Towards the end he got crazily sloppy. In a couple of his interviews while awaiting execution he gives the impression he was shocked how long it took the authorities to catch him.

His ability to be very personable to his victims, family and friends and many others to the degree that even after the guilty verdict so many still thought him innocent or misunderstood shows some pretty impressive innate understanding of human psychology and how to work it to his favour. This is a guy that was able to get his girlfriend pregnant in a maximum security facility after his guilty verdict. That's a high level EQ going on, minus the basic not raping and butchering young women humanity part of course.

Was he some great genius? No. He was a psychopathic predator with a very high social and emotional intelligence. A really bad mix. The social oddballs tend to be easier to spot and catch. And we expect those types. I think that's one reason he fascinated and frightened so many.

Fair points, Wibbs. I tend to agree mostly. I just don't like this whole 'oh Ted Bundy, what a genius' glorification nonsense. He wasn't Stephen Hawking. He wasn't even Stephen Fry. A lot of the admiration for him comes from lonely, smitten females enamoured with his handsome visage.

I think the myth that serial killers are super intelligent is being debunked with time, thankfully. Israel Keyes, for example, wrote a suicide note which made him sound like an immature teenager, quite frankly.

The most intelligent serial killer I can think of off the top of my head was probably Ian Brady. Melvin Rees was also said to be very bright.

On the opposite side, we had the more 'successful 'Gary Ridgeway, who by all accounts, was as thick as two planks. He was street-smart and just as deadly.

Dennis Rader, aka BTK, was described as a 'total moron' by the cops who caught him. I suspect some of them were a tad ashamed once they found out what a buffoon their ultimate nemesis for decades in Kansas turned out to be. After he had sent law enforcement a taunting message via floppy disk, they simply right-clicked and found his name and church address. Voila! He was nabbed.

Deleted User wrote: »

The side that is overly researched versus a lot more where there is no research or is suppressed.

Nothing can be 'overly researched'. Where research does not exist, the invention of it, or claims of suppression, does not hold equal validity as actual evidence.

corks finest

As many now if not more, easier to be caught then, travelling less,and most odd balls potential nuts well on the cops radar,how the ripper carried on for so long still amazes me

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

The mediocre grades thing gives little indication of overall cleverness.

Plus 'In mid-1970, Bundy, now focused and goal-oriented, re-enrolled at UW, this time as a psychology major. He became an honor student and was well regarded by his professors'

Despite the above, it's possible he was not motivated to do well academically. One of the reasons his first serious girlfriends left was he wasn't ambitious enough for her. We'll never get inside his mind, but I doubt he was far from dumb (two jail breaks to his name also).

[Deleted User]

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Nothing can be 'overly researched'. Where research does not exist, the invention of it, or claims of suppression, does not hold equal validity as actual evidence.

*sigh* It's false to claim a populace that has a lot of research means that somewhere less researched or has repressive regimes can lead to the conclusion that other populaces have less prevalence for the researched element. That's what you claimed earlier. It's poor logic.

Sheridan81

Deleted User wrote: »

Despite the above, it's possible he was not motivated to do well academically.

I imagine the whole 'abducting, raping, strangling women then later returning to their hidden corpse to daub them with make-up' proved to be an unwelcome distraction to his studies.

I know that my attention was often drawn from my books when I saw an episode of Home And Away was cruelly scheduled to clash with study time; so I can only guess how taxing it must have been for him.

Deleted User wrote: »

*sigh* It's false to claim a populace that has a lot of research means that somewhere less researched or has repressive regimes can lead to the conclusion that other populaces have less prevalence for the researched element. That's what you claimed earlier.

No, that's not what I claimed. I'm afraid I'm on the brink of going all Tommy Lynn Sells on your ass (you might want to google him).

Jonybgud

Sheridan81 wrote: »

I was responding to your request for me to 'follow the figures' of missing persons.

Thanks for your post, a lot of juicy content to digest, which I will do when I get a chance.

I'm no expert in the subject, just someone with a morbid fascination I suppose.

My own thoughts on the subject are, as I've said, I believe these predators are out there, logic would dictate that there are more than has been detected.

I believe they are similar to any predator in the wild, where their numbers are proportional to the numbers of their prey.

Wouldn't it be terrifying if the figures you show say for the US were actually a true representation for each area.

[Deleted User]

Sheridan81 wrote: »

No, that's not what I claimed. I'm afraid I'm on the brink of going all Tommy Lynn Sells on your ass (you might want to google him).

This is what you said...

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Some countries have little history of producing what would be described, in exact terms, a serial killer.

You neglect to realise the word history is made up of the word Story - a record. Not sure spelling it out for you any further will help, but the lack of recording does not mean absence.

You claim others are ignorant, but you're coming across as a clueless know it all.

And, you might like to read a bit of Irish literature... If you could be arsed. :P

Sheridan81

Deleted User wrote: »

This is what you said...

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Some countries have little history of producing what would be described, in exact terms, a serial killer.

Correct. Not please tell me how that, which is taken out of context anyway;as I was responding to a claim that there is an equal amount of serial killers everywhere-but regardless-translates to...

Deleted User wrote: »

claim a populace that has a lot of research means that somewhere less researched or has repressive regimes can lead to the conclusion that other populaces have less prevalence for the researched element.

^Terribly clunky sentence by the way.

I don't do 'conclusions'. I make arguments and then provide evidence to back them up, unlike you.

You haven't indicated what countries have less/more 'research' and/or 'repressive' regimes, nor have you told me what the 'research' and 'repression' would consist of; you are simply using bywords to avoid making a valid point.

In fact, don't bother-your expertise on serial killing seems to extend to having watched the Ted Bundy movie with Zac Efron and watched a half-hour docu on Netflix about Jack The Ripper.

I'm done responding to you. Good day.:)

[Deleted User]

Sheridan81 wrote: »

I don't do 'conclusions'.

You concluded we were being ignorant on the subject, whereas you were very well read and offered to sell your wares.

I've neither watched the Zac Efron movie or watched the Netflix Bundy series (I mentioned this earlier, but not surprised you missed it).

Is there no beginning to your talents?

And good day to you and best of luck in hawking your wares.

riclad

We have more security camera,s now, we have advanced dna tech.
most people carry mobile phones .most people no longer hitch hike .cops now have acess to computers and database,s .
they can look up car plate no,s and personal data in a minute.
crime has gone down in the last 10 years .
but there is new tech crime like bitcoin hack,s , stealing credit card data online , stealing peoples personal info etc
If a serial killer is active there,ll be 1000,s of people online looking for information even if the cops are not able to find him.
i think maybe at least 10 per cent of ceo,s are pyscho,s if you look at certain business,s that carry out fraud to make money,
eg many banks have been caught laundering money for criminals and
terrorist,s .
a company increased the price of a drug x 100 times a few years ago
this drug is life saving ,
if you don,t use it you will die.

kyote00

The Honey Monster was the scariest cerial killer also....

JustAThought

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You concluded we were being ignorant on the subject, whereas you were very well read and offered to sell your wares.

I've neither watched the Zac Efron movie or watched the Netflix Bundy series (I mentioned this earlier, but not surprised you missed it).

Is there no beginning to your talents?

And good day to you and best of luck in hawking your wares.

that’s a bit mean. & some of these new private colleges offering crime and criminality studies might be interested for their libraries -or their students might.

I agree that with forensics and media -particularly social media-its much easier to be caught, but if look at many (!?) of the cases you often see themes of people saying they were ignored, the coos didn’t bother or that vital links or witnesses simply wern’t followed up or interviewed.

By chance I watched a few documentaries on a serial killer in the us & elsewhere and in one his first rape & violence victim escaped -a native american - the dna went untested & he was interviewed & let off & went on to rape & kill for decades. Ditto the green river killer whose wife didnt mention to police that he had cut chunks 6ft square out of different parts of the houses carpets that matched bodies found in carpet in nearby areas- or the horrifying case of those little children kept snd tortured for years in a dungeon in belgium while the police f* around with evidence that would have lead them to them years earlier had they bothered.Ditto even that last link and example in Canada and that french army serial killer who operated for decades & murdered that poor Irish hitchhiker -Frank O’Keefe was it -amongst many others.

Being a successful serial killer nowadays seems to have much more to do with picking the right socioeconomic victim and police incompetence or unwillingness to investigate -properly. that is where the power of social media comes in -is this our final frontier against evil?

ILoveYourVibes

badabing106 wrote: »

All the most deranged and notorious serial killers did their killing in the 70s and 80s

Gacy, kemper, Bundy, Chikatilo, Ramirez, Pedro Lopez, Koll

And why did this trend stop? Does this stuff still happen but doesn't make same kind of headlines because of the internet?

They catch them earlier. Thank god.

Its why its all mass shootings now.

Well that's my looper theory anyhow ...but what do i know.

Forensic science crime psychology etc is better. It evolved ..criminals largely didn't. It takes a group to evolve ..most serial killers are lone wolves. They can't evolve and learn.Thank god.