During the New Orleans serial killer segment the Stackmeister General makes a statement along the lines of (paraphgrasing) "According to some estimates, there may be as many as 100 serial killers active in the U.S.". This poll is to find out how many of us consider this a TRUE or a FALSE statement as of April 07, 2009.


My first instinct is that this is false and that the statement is deliberate in its vaguery. Terms like “some estimates” and the tenuous definition of what an “active serial killer” give me pause as to the veracity of this claim. Howver, I know from stating this opinion before on these boards that I’m in the minority on this.


When I think about it a little longer I am given cause to re-think my initial belief when I debate the actual numbers involved. “100 serial killers” could be 2 per state and surely there exists in each state in the Union 2 people who have the standard “3 killings” definition of “serial killer”. Right? Shoot, in NYC & LA alone you have enough gang members with 3 kills each that the original estimate could be “…as many as 1,000 serial killers active…”.


Switching lanes yet again, I feel the preceding sentiments are the types of statements which pave the way for the semantic and the technically accurate, though intentionally misleading, variety of discussion I find so deplorable and feel are the root of the original statement.


So I ask you, my fellow worshippers at the UM shrine: Is that an accurate assessment? Before you make your decision and definitely before you reply please consider the following:

In this instance, “serial killer” will be defined as the type of predator killer who kills as compulsion, having a “type” or a consistent modus operandi Do not count professional hitmen, gang members, con men, etc.

Ask yourself what the term “active serial killer” means. For example, when was Dennis Rader (BTK) “active”? Jack the Ripper killed 5 women, that we’re sure of, in 1888. Was he an “active” serial killer for the rest of his life? Again I ask, consider what the term means before you vote.

Consider when the original statement was made by Herr Stackengruber and whether you think it applies today in 2009. Was it true then? Do you think crime is worse now?

Lastly, and just as a silly aside, why are we as a culture SO hung up on rounded deca-system numerics? Is 100 serial killers really much worse than 99, 87, or even 53? Couldn't the same data and evidence from which this estimate originates find that there is 101 serial killers or 96? Would that number be as memorable or as oft-repeated?



For the record, I’m not hoping this poll goes one way or the other. I’m just curious as to how everyone else thinks. Also in the interest of full disclosure: I don’t think there’s any where NEAR 100 serial killers of the kind I described, “active” (as I imagine the definition) in the U.S. right now.

Corky,

Does your question mean that there are ONLY 100 serial killers active in the US right now?

OR

That there are AT LEAST 100 serial killers active in the us right now?

I voted YES, basing my answer on the assumption that the question meant that there are at least 100 serial killers who are active. But then, I read your commentary, and I'm wondering if you meant that due to the criteria involved, that there are only 100 or less active serial killers.

Sorry to be a pain... I'm confused. (As usual.)

I think that is a fantastic inquiry. RS also utters that foreboding line about the nefarious, nation-maurauding gang of "100 active serial killers" in the Connecticut River Valley Killer segment (in fact, it's nearly verbatim to the one in the segment you mentioned). I think my husband put it best: Really?

Compulsion killers (which are defined in my source closely to your criteria) make up the smallest percentage of all murderers in the U.S.--in fact, a grossly slim portion. The statistics I'm referring to are, albeit, over a decade old. I have no reason to believe, however, that these numbers have changed drastically in ten years' time, as FBI and NCIC reports have indicated a drop in ALL violent crimes--not just murder--in the past fifteen years. I think this is due to better law enforcement hiring processes, better LE training, and technological advances in forensics and other related fields.

Since the 1970s--and especially in the wake of such press giants as the Son of Sam murders and the Green River killings--the American media has been utterly transfixed by the notion of the serial killer. In fact, there have been documented instances of publications altering or completely fabricating information on area crimes in order to create "serial killings" when they actually did not in fact exist: the 1974 "lady of the dunes" case in Provinceton, MA is one such example, in which a local newspaper relayed to its readers that police were looking for a killer who had littered the local beaches' sand dunes with "the bodies of 12 women" when, in fact, only one woman was found, with not even a shred of evidence to suggest the killer had claimed an additional eleven. New York City's "Soda Pop Slasher" was almost certainly a total fabrication designed to obtain a book deal, and wildly exaggerated (and sometimes completely false) accounts of the Son of Sam and Zodiac murders can still be found in archives today. I think we're a society that's frequently imprisoned by its own media machine. While the majority of us are otherwise quite rational people in most regards, we often find ourselves the first ones glued to the television when the local anchorman or -woman starts flapping his or her gums about "a string of seemingly related murders." We are so willing to believe that serial killers run amuck in our communities because we've been taught to do so.

I think you raise an excellent point on the word active. This term is vague and, I believe, intentionally misleading, as you said. It is a perfect word to use in the context of the dialouge, though. Active can just as easily mean "killed five and stopped" as "killed two and might kill at least one other" as "killed forty-three but broke both his legs and is chilling at the house right now", and so on. Also, the term serial killer is misleading, as there would be no way to confirm with absolute certainty until the presumed killer is caught that a string of supposedly connected murders are definitely the work of the same individual--additionally, if the killer is caught and incarcerated, he/she would then cease to be an "active" serial killer.


I guess I should cut the rambling, though. I believe the statement is FALSE, without a shadow of doubt.

I think there is an I-94 corridor serial killer. I don't believe that over 100 teenage boys/men all got drunk at college parties/bars and then mysteriously disappeared...the ones that have been found were all found in rivers and the others well...have never been found. The police say there is no connection between all of the missing men...but all of their disappearances are so much alike...they just leave the party/bar and just vanish. But that is just my opinion.

I think there is an I-94 corridor serial killer. I don't believe that over 100 teenage boys/men all got drunk at college parties/bars and then mysteriously disappeared...the ones that have been found were all found in rivers and the others well...have never been found. The police say there is no connection between all of the missing men...but all of their disappearances are so much alike...they just leave the party/bar and just vanish. But that is just my opinion.

Shane, very interesting info!

What stretch of I94 are you referring to? We've got I94 here that starts in detroit and is the main route to Chicago, then from there it keeps going west through Wisconsin, MinneSNOWta, and even N.Dakota, and Montana.

Many believe that the smiley face killers work parts of that area which are on the rivers, targeting drunk college age men. What do you think?

Corky,

Does your question mean that there are ONLY 100 serial killers active in the US right now?

...Sorry to be a pain... I'm confused. (As usual.)

@TracyLynnS: I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I took the statement to mean that there are "at least" 100 SKs in the US at any given time.

ODon't be sorry, I walk around confused all damned day


@MegTheEgg86: What a well thought out summarization! Great read. I wasn't aware of those media-fabricated serial killers, that's very interesting. Your hubby's succinct retort is perfect. I was surprised when I first heard it...in my mind how can you NOT question it? Then I was surprised again when I expressed my disbelief on these boards and found that I was pretty much alone in my skepticism.

Anyone know how many serial killers were identified last year?

I remember reading somewhere that in 1984, there were between 35-50 active serial killers. Anyone verify that?

You figure as investigative and behavioral investigation techniques improve that number in the late 80s and early 90s could jump to 100 easily.



I read somewhere else that could be as many as 500 serial killers active today.

Again, I'm trying to find a source for that stat.

Tracy Lynn

The smiley face killer is who I am referring to when I say the I-94 killer. Before the discovered the smiley faces they were calling it I-95 killings 'cuz all of the deaths occurred there. Sorry I wasn't that clear on that.

During the New Orleans serial killer segment the Stackmeister General makes a statement along the lines of (paraphgrasing) "According to some estimates, there may be as many as 100 serial killers active in the U.S.". This poll is to find out how many of us consider this a TRUE or a FALSE statement as of April 07, 2009.


My first instinct is that this is false and that the statement is deliberate in its vaguery. Terms like “some estimates” and the tenuous definition of what an “active serial killer” give me pause as to the veracity of this claim. Howver, I know from stating this opinion before on these boards that I’m in the minority on this.


When I think about it a little longer I am given cause to re-think my initial belief when I debate the actual numbers involved. “100 serial killers” could be 2 per state and surely there exists in each state in the Union 2 people who have the standard “3 killings” definition of “serial killer”. Right? Shoot, in NYC & LA alone you have enough gang members with 3 kills each that the original estimate could be “…as many as 1,000 serial killers active…”.


Switching lanes yet again, I feel the preceding sentiments are the types of statements which pave the way for the semantic and the technically accurate, though intentionally misleading, variety of discussion I find so deplorable and feel are the root of the original statement.


So I ask you, my fellow worshippers at the UM shrine: Is that an accurate assessment? Before you make your decision and definitely before you reply please consider the following:

In this instance, “serial killer” will be defined as the type of predator killer who kills as compulsion, having a “type” or a consistent modus operandi Do not count professional hitmen, gang members, con men, etc.

Ask yourself what the term “active serial killer” means. For example, when was Dennis Rader (BTK) “active”? Jack the Ripper killed 5 women, that we’re sure of, in 1888. Was he an “active” serial killer for the rest of his life? Again I ask, consider what the term means before you vote.

Consider when the original statement was made by Herr Stackengruber and whether you think it applies today in 2009. Was it true then? Do you think crime is worse now?

Lastly, and just as a silly aside, why are we as a culture SO hung up on rounded deca-system numerics? Is 100 serial killers really much worse than 99, 87, or even 53? Couldn't the same data and evidence from which this estimate originates find that there is 101 serial killers or 96? Would that number be as memorable or as oft-repeated?



For the record, I’m not hoping this poll goes one way or the other. I’m just curious as to how everyone else thinks. Also in the interest of full disclosure: I don’t think there’s any where NEAR 100 serial killers of the kind I described, “active” (as I imagine the definition) in the U.S. right now.

I honestly don't know, however I would classify a serial killer as having killed 2or more people. I would also include hit men, gang members, that have killed at least 2 people in with serial killers. Basically what I'm saying is anybody that's killed 2 people makes me believe the first one wasn't a mistake/accident.

Regarding your last point, I would imagine because it's alot easier for people to say "Susan Collins got 444,000 votes" instead of "Susan Collins got 444,587votes." Also, people will remember 444,000, not 444,587.

I honestly don't know, however I would classify a serial killer as having killed 2or more people. I would also include hit men, gang members, that have killed at least 2 people in with serial killers. Basically what I'm saying is anybody that's killed 2 people makes me believe the first one wasn't a mistake/accident.

OKay, but do you understand the point I was getting to? That there most definitely ARE people who may have 3 or more (or 2 or more) kills under their belt, very definitely not an accident, but are motivated for reasons that don’t comply with the modern culture definition of “serial killer”. Successful hitmen, some gang members, some mobsters, Dr. Kavorkian, Timothy McVeigh etc. I wouldn’t consider them serial killers the way Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Jack the Ripper, or EAR/ONS are all serial killers, even though they’ve all killed more than the prerequisite number of people. Hell even the guy who presses the button which injects death row prisoners with their poisons is technically a serial killer. At least if he’s been on the job long enough in Texas or Florida, that is.


I fully believe that when Robert Stack, aka Stack Daddy Cadillac, alludes to “…as many as 100 serial killers active in U.S.” in the segments of the Connecticut Valley and the New Orleans serial killers, the writers of the script had meant for the viewer to infer that there are that many of THAT PARTICULAR TYPE of serial killer, the psycho-sexual predator type serial killers, active in the U.S.



Regarding your last point, I would imagine because it's alot easier for people to say "Susan Collins got 444,000 votes" instead of "Susan Collins got 444,587votes." Also, people will remember 444,000, not 444,587.


Yep. That's what I think too. I was just being silly. I think its similar to the reason directions downtown are always given on corners. Not everyone lives on a corner but if telling about where they live, they'll usually say "I live around 15th & F".

I think there is an I-94 corridor serial killer. I don't believe that over 100 teenage boys/men all got drunk at college parties/bars and then mysteriously disappeared...the ones that have been found were all found in rivers and the others well...have never been found. The police say there is no connection between all of the missing men...but all of their disappearances are so much alike...they just leave the party/bar and just vanish. But that is just my opinion.

That doesn't mean that the police really believes that some of the cases aren't linked, however they will deny it publicly until they can positively link the murders together by DNA, witnesses, a confession, or after it becomes untenable to pretend otherwise.

I honestly don't know, however I would classify a serial killer as having killed 2or more people. I would also include hit men, gang members, that have killed at least 2 people in with serial killers. Basically what I'm saying is anybody that's killed 2 people makes me believe the first one wasn't a mistake/accident.

I disagree with that definition.

We cannot deny that the term "serial killing", used officially or colloqually, defines a very particuliar phenomena that excludes soldiers, gangsters, or hitmen. If we start to include anyone who has killed more than twice, we reduce the definition to a mere question of numbers, while in fact serial murderers are very particular kinds of criminals.

- Commits murder more than once over a period of time
- Has a more or less period of cooldown between the murders
- Intends to murder or cause harm
- Has compulsion to kill
- Derives personal gratification from murder as a primary objective
- Works alone or, more rarely, in a group sharing the same aims of killing

There are cases of hitmen or gangsters who become serial murderers, who will kill on their own without any instruction for the flimsiest of reasons because they sadistically like to kill. But the latter isn't inherent to the former. And besides, unless they are at the top they are usually eliminated within months or years because they are loose cannons.

Also, serial murderers do not necessarily target strangers: In Snowtown, New South Wales' infamous "Bodies in the Barrels" case, Bunting and his gang targeting people within their own circle of acquaintance, but their status as social outcasts or unemployed allowed them to disappear undetected by authorities. But aside of that they fitted all the criterias above.

So they just caught this guy in wisconsin for killing 9 women. Is he the I-94 killer that UM profiled?? I saw the map where the bodies were discovered and I saw I-94 on the map not too far away! Anyone have any insight?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/08/wisconsin.serial.killing.arrest/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

Gang bangers are not the classic definition of a serial killer that we think of. Someone in a gang that may shoot a few rival gang members in drive-bys or whatever is not that methodical, calculating, diabolical serial killer we think of when we think of Bundy, Ramirez, BTK, Dahmer, etc.

I would bet almost anything that there are less than 100 of those type of serial killers around.

I'd say the amount of active unidentified serial killers in the US would be closer to 25-50. 100 seems to be way too high.

I fully believe that when Robert Stack, aka Stack Daddy Cadillac,

This is the most awesome thing I've read all day.

You know we tend to forget sometimesd what a huge country the United States is. Considering the population and size...100 active serial killers may be an accurate staistic.