America’s Serial Killers – How Many Are There?

by Diane Dimond

It was a small but horrifying item in the Los Angeles Times. “Police are asking for the public’s help in identifying what they call a ‘serious, dangerous serial killer operating in Orange County. Police believe one person is responsible for stabbing three middle-aged homeless men. He is (considered) extremely dangerous to the public.”

Another serial killer, I thought. And then the question: How many serial killers are out there in America?

John Douglas, a former Chief of the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit and author of “Mind Hunter” says, “A very conservative estimate is that there are between 35-50 active serial killers in the United States” at any given time. Often, Douglas told me, they will, “kill 2-3 victims and then have a “cooling-off” period between kills.”

That period can be days and in some cases (such as the BTK Strangler, Dennis Rader, convicted of killing 10 people from 1974 to 1991) even years.”

But others who study serial killers (defined as someone who kills 3 or more people) think there are many more of these demented predators out there than the FBI admits to – maybe as many as a hundred of them actively operating right now.

Why don’t we know the exact figure? Because serial killers are a secretive and often nomadic bunch.

Right before his execution in January 1989 the widely traveled Ted Bundy, described as a charismatic killer, admitted to 30 murders across half a dozen states – from Washington to Florida.

Andrew Cunanan killed at least five people during his wanderings through Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey and Florida, including fashion designer Gianni Versace in Miami.

The FBI knows death travels and five years ago it set up the Highway Serial Killings Initiative. The bureau reveals it has “a matrix of more than 600 victims and potential suspects in excess of 275.” Since the bodies were found off major highways top suspects are long-haul truckers who may pick up prey in one state and dump the body several states away.

I know this is disturbing to read and you may wonder, “Why should I care? I’m not going to hitchhike at a truck stop!”

Well, realize lots of serial killers stay close to home and their victims are random. The aforementioned Dennis Rader (left) found all his victims in Kansas not far from the Wichita home he shared with his wife and two kids. Rader, the president of his local church, knocked on his victim’s doors and they simply let him in.

John Wayne Gacy, met many of his 33 victims (all young men and boys) at charity events where he appeared dressed a clown. After luring them to his house and murdering them he stuffed them under his Cook County, Illinois home.

Gary Leon Ridgway, the so-called Green River Killer, was convicted of strangling 49 random women he met in Washington. He confessed to killing 71 but authorities believe the number of victims could be over 90.

Jeffrey Dahmer of Milwaukee admitted to killing and cannibalizing 17 young men and boys before he was arrested. Dahmer’s mother, Joyce, once told me her son wished doctors would come study him in prison to help figure out what drove him to do it.

We who write about crime are told that law enforcement nationwide is doing a better job of communicating with each other about suspected serial killers. Indeed, the item I read about the homeless murders was a milestone. In the past, detectives were loath to tell the public about a serial killer on the loose for fear of spooking people. Now, they’ve come to realize that knowledge is power and citizen’s information can be a huge help in solving crimes.

Hardly a state in the union hasn’t had a serial killer. California, Texas and Florida seem to have more than their fair share. And mass graves have been found all around the country. Two examples: The 11 bodies of young women and an infant found on the isolated West Mesa outside Albuquerque. And, an eerily similar case thousands of miles away in Long Island, New York where authorities unearthed 10 bodies – eight women and a toddler along with a man dressed in women’s clothes.

These are among the serial killer dumping grounds that have been found. Many others may go undetected forever.

The best thing we can do is be vigilant. Know that many victims of serial killers put themselves in harm’s way. Most are women who have some contact with the sex trade or illegal drug underworld and if they have children they are in grave danger too.

Dr. Maurice Godwin has studied serial killers for years and one in-depth analysis of 107 of them revealed important information. Godwin found 55% of serial killers began having trouble in childhood and had criminal juvenile records. 45% had been convicted for a previous sex crime. As with so many criminals it goes back to their early formative years and the best lesson we can learn is that when we find a troubled child we best help them. Failure to do so could result in another serial killer walking among us.

Tweet

The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree

by Donna Pendergast

The development of DNA databases is helping investigators solve crime by looking for genetic near-matches -- results close enough to an already-stored DNA profile to suggest the crime was committed by a relative. Familial DNA database searches are based on the fundamental principle that DNA profiles of persons who are related are likely to contain similarities. Parents, siblings, and even more distant relatives such as aunts, uncles and cousins can be linked to crimes because a relative's DNA closely resembles DNA left behind at the crime scene.

In one of the earliest high-profile cases to use familial DNA, Dennis Rader, the BTK (Bind, Torture and Kill) killer, (right) was apprehended in 2005. Rader, who eluded authorities in the Wichita, Kansas, area for more than 30 years while killing 10 people, was ultimately tied to the crimes by his daughter's DNA sample. Law enforcement authorities had a suspect and were looking to tie him to the various crime scenes. Rader's daughter had given a Pap smear at a university clinic five years before. Investigators obtained a search warrant for that DNA specimen and determined that her DNA profile almost perfectly matched the DNA profile taken from several BTK crime scenes.

In a more recent case, Los Angeles police arrested 57-year-old Lonnie David Franklin Jr., a suspected serial killer, earlier this month by comparing DNA found at some of his crime scenes with the DNA of his son. The son was incarcerated in a California prison on a weapons charge. Franklin, known as the "Grim Sleeper" because of a 12-year hiatus between crimes, is accused of killing 11 people since 1985. The successful arrest was the end result of a controversial policy enacted in 2008, when the California Attorney General approved running a familial DNA search through the state's databases for major violent unsolved crimes.

The police found Franklin (left) by running a random comparison search throughout the databank that keeps DNA information for the California prison system. Franklin himself was not in that database, because despite two arrests, because he had spent his time in county jails rather than the state prison system. After zeroing in on Franklin's son and a near DNA match, investigators began following Franklin. They obtained his DNA from a discarded napkin and plate which he threw away after eating pizza.

The use of familial DNA searching has been a common practice in Europe, Australia and New Zealand for years. Since 2004, British authorities have conducted multiple investigations resulting in 18 matches and 13 convictions. The United States has been slower to embrace the practice because of technical, legal and ethical issues. To date, only Colorado and California have made wide use of the practice.

California allows near-match searches in major violent crimes where all other avenues have proven fruitless. Police are required to pursue all leads before a search is allowed. Colorado has allowed more widespread use of the practice to include nonviolent cases. Maryland, the only state to have addressed the issue statutorily, has banned the use of familial DNA searches altogether.

Last year, the F.B.I. decided not to reconfigure their CODIS DNA search software after hearing concerns of critics of familial searches. Thomas Callaghan, the former head of the F.B.I.'s national DNA database, worried that familial DNA searches may be legally vulnerable. He has said he fears that the courts may not look kindly upon using for one purpose samples originally collected for another. Civil libertarians cite constitutional guarantees against unwarranted searches and concerns about invading the privacy of persons whose only crime is having a relative in the database. They argue that it amounts to guilt by association. They also note that innocent family members could become unwitting informants against other relatives.

Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey, an enthusiastic proponent of the use of familial DNA, defends the practice by arguing that it increases public safety. He believes that law enforcement has a responsibility to use available technology, in a constitutional and legal way, to protect communities. But Colorado ACLU Director Mark Silverstein questions the practice: "The use of so-called familial DNA matches dramatically expands the potential for invasion of privacy posed by law enforcement's ever-growing DNA databases."

No state has specifically allowed the use of familial searches, but 16 now permit the use of partial matching obtained through fortuitous circumstances, while prohibiting the use of deliberate familial searching. In addressing the controversy, Peter Marone, director of the Virginia Department of Forensic Science, says: "This is much more than a scientific issue. There are other policy issues involved."

It is clear that there must be safeguards to ensure that the technique is not abused, and to minimize the potential for erroneous matches merely because a DNA profile is similar. However, the use of familial DNA searching could revolutionize criminal investigations. It is hard to ignore a technology that has the potential to apprehend violent predators before they have the chance to prey on additional victims. How does one tell a victim or surviving family member that we had the technology to prevent the crime but we couldn't use it?

Try telling that to the family member of what could have been a future victim of BTK or the Grim Sleeper.

Statements made in this post are my own and are not intended to reflect the views, opinion or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet

What Would You Think?

by Diane Fanning

If someone you loved, or even someone you knew, were accused of a crime would your first response be to seek refuge in denial? I’ve always believed that I’d be able to look truth in the eye and accept it, no matter how distasteful or horrendous. I did, at least, until a recent event occurred just blocks from my home.

For years, we’ve all watched the neighbors and friends of serial killers, mass murderers, pedophiles and others express shock when crimes are disclosed so close to their doorsteps. How many times have we heard: “He was a nice guy, a quiet guy, a good neighbor?” How many red flags sprouted out of his front lawn while no one took note?

Even more amazing to anyone looking at a crime from an objective distance are the family members that never noticed. The estranged husband of Susan Smith stood beside her as she sobbed coast to coast. He believed in her innocence. We, the public, believed in her innocence.

The wife of BTK Dennis Rader claimed cluelessness about her husband’s crime. (below: decades old snapshot of the Rader family)

Many scoffed at her ignorance—others refused to believe she knew nothing. How could she climb into bed with him night after night and not know about his secret life?

Kathleen Peterson had no idea that her husband Michael led a double life—outwardly heterosexual and monogamous but engaging in sex with men at the Y, trolling the Internet for homosexual pornography and even contacting male escorts on-line. Kathleen didn’t know until the last night of her life. Her murder kept Michael’s secret for a while—but not for long.

And yet, when the evidence of his responsibility for this homicide came cascading around him, family members stood by his side refusing to accept his culpability—seeing him as persecuted instead of prosecuted. No surprise that his biological sons since questioned about involvement in the cover-up made public displays of denial in their best interest.

But what of Martha and Margaret? Michael was guardian of those two girls from the time they were very small. They stuck with him through the trial and through his appeals. He was convicted of murdering the mother figure in their lives but he was also suspected of responsibility for the similar death of Martha and Margaret’s biological mother, Liz Ratliffe, sixteen years earlier. And yet, they found their refuge in denial—in the place where facts are irrelevant and emotion trumps evidence.

The proclivity for denial doesn’t end with murder. Many times, stalwart family members hearing accusations of serial rape have stood up denying the guilt of a son, brother, husband or father—even when confronted with the panties of victims stuffed in the corner of his dresser drawer. Learning of charges of pedophilia, some still deny even after learning that their loved one’s computer was filled with thousands of indecent images of children.

So how would you react? How would I? I’d like to think that because of my background, I could be objective and stand always in defiance of the siren call of denial. And then I read the headline about someone I knew—someone I respected—and I stumbled.

The high school Criminal Justice teacher, a man in his sixties, retired from law enforcement, was accused of sexual impropriety with a teenage girl in one of his classes. My denial rose up like floodwaters, bearing indignation on its crest.

I was certain that the student was making it up in typical adolescent drama queen fashion. She didn’t get the grade she wanted or she felt humiliated in class, or she couldn’t get the letter of recommendation she wanted. I knew it had to be her fault, her problem, her vindictiveness. I refused to accept the possibility that this man I knew was at fault in any way.

I remained there for two days, certain of his innocence. Then the newspapers told the story of his text messages to the girl. He expressed his infatuation with her in vivid words. He wanted to leave his wife to be with her. It was like cold water in my face.

My first thoughts were amazement at the stupidity of this man. Former law enforcement and a criminal justice teacher and yet he leaves a text message trail? After assimilating those facts, I was overcome with outrage. Outrage at the teacher for betraying the trust placed in him by the students, the school, the parents—by society itself.

And outrage at myself for my willingness to believe the worst about the girl who had the courage to stand up to his behavior, face the possibility of embarrassment in her community and the ostracizing by her classmates—the girl who was willing to do the right thing.

Yes, my denial only lasted two days but it was a source of inner shame. I suppose I should be more tolerant in my judgment of myself. After all, denial is a natural, protective reaction to stress. I don’t think I can manage to cut myself that much slack but I do know I can do it for others.

After all, perpetrators on all levels strive for stealth—some perform exquisitely, others are bumbling idiots. Who am I to judge those who are taken in by these manipulators?

When I see a parent submerged in a deep well of denial, I’ll be empathetic of their unenviable situation. When I see a spouse certain of their loved one’s innocence, I won’t automatically suspect their involvement in the other’s crime or its cover-up. When I see a mother prostrate from the burden of a child’s guilt, cobbling together a flawed alibi to protect the babe she bore, I will understand.

Tweet