Showing posts with label BTK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BTK. Show all posts
Saturday, April 28, 2018
A Blast From the Past
It occurred to me this week, when 72–year–old Joseph James DeAngelo was arrested under suspicion of being the infamous Golden State Killer of the 1970s and 1980s, that it was a lot like when Dennis Rader was charged in another cold case, the BTK slayings in Kansas, in 2005.
Rader's crime spree started roughly the same time as the Golden State Killer's — in the mid–1970s. He continued a few years after the Golden State Killer's known attacks ended. (I say known because more facts may yet emerge as this case unfolds.)
Both men were regarded as a bit quirky — even menacing — by others; they held positions of authority and lived for many years in the communities they terrorized.
If DeAngelo turns out to be the Golden State Killer — he entered no plea when he appeared in court yesterday — he had a slightly higher body count. Of course, that doesn't include the roughly four dozen rapes or the more than 100 burglaries that have been tied to the Golden State Killer. That makes him a far more prolific criminal.
The men are roughly the same age — and had no reason to be concerned about DNA evidence at the time they committed their crimes since the development of that technology was still in the distant future. They knew enough about contemporary forensic evidence to avoid the evidentiary traps of the times, but DNA, which played a role in their eventual captures, was not on their radar.
DNA was discovered in the 19th century, but how to apply it to criminal investigations evolved well into the next century. In the '70s, high school science teachers could tell their students about DNA, but they couldn't say how it would influence law enforcement — or anything else — in the years ahead.
It would be a couple of decades before most people would get that kind of exposure via the O.J. Simpson trial — and even then DNA was misunderstood by many.
Neither man said much during the arraignment phase. DeAngelo confirmed his name when asked; Rader said nothing during his arraignment.
All serial killers are not created equal, though. While DeAngelo apparently has kept mostly silent since being taken into custody, Rader seemed to derive pleasure in letting the authorities know how clever he had been, confessing to crimes in addition to the ones with which he had been charged.
It all comes down to what motivates a serial killer, and they are as individual in their motivations as people in any other walk of life. For those who study serial killers, it will be instructive to learn what motivated DeAngelo.
Labels:
BTK,
California,
cold case,
Golden State Killer,
Kansas,
serial killer
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Crimes of the Century?
TIME has compiled a list of the top 25 "crimes of the century."
Such a list is, of course, bound to spark arguments because people always believe something obvious has been left off the list.
I don't have too many qualms about TIME's list, but there are a few things that didn't make the list.
And their absences are conspicuous enough that I don't think I would recommend regarding TIME's list as the last word.
Before I get to that, I'll point out that I think most of the entries on the list do deserve to be there. Like, for example, the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. And the Manson family murders. And the Patty Hearst kidnapping. And Ted Bundy. And John Wayne Gacy. And Jeffrey Dahmer.
Likewise, the Unabomber case belongs on the list. So does O.J. Simpson.
And I definitely feel that the Columbine massacre belongs on the list. But if Columbine is there, why isn't the Virginia Tech massacre? Is it because Virginia Tech actually occurred in the 21st century? Well, the theft of Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream" took place the year before the shootings at Tech (2006), yet it made the list. And Andrea Yates killed her children in 2001, but those killings made the list, too.
If notorious killings and their perpetrators qualify as crimes of the century, why didn't the Boston Strangler make the list? Or the Hillside Strangler? Or the Night Stalker? Didn't all of those killers terrorize entire cities? How about BTK? Or Charlie Starkweather?
How about Aileen Wuornos, the female serial killer who was executed a few years ago and was the subject of an Academy Award–winning film starring Charlize Theron?
Any of them would make more sense to me than including Andrew Cunanan's murder of Gianni Versace in 1997 ... or the still unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
I'm thoroughly baffled as to why the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which took 168 lives, wasn't on the list.
And shouldn't the September 11 terrorist attacks be on the list?
If the list is expanded to include foreign events, the murders of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics deserve to be recognized.
For that matter, it seems to me that the Watergate break–in should be on the list, given all the things it put into motion.
Here's one that definitely took place in the 20th century but did not appear on the list — the John F. Kennedy assassination.
Nearly half a century later, that event still seems to call out from the recesses of history — never satisfactorily resolved, drawing renewed attention to unanswered questions.
Last week, I watched the premiere of a new documentary on The History Channel about the 24–hour period immediately following the shooting. It capped a week of Kennedy documentaries on The History Channel. I haven't seen any viewership numbers, but, folks, TV channels simply don't devote a week's worth of primetime programming to anything unless their programming directors have a pretty good idea that it's going to attract a lot of viewers.
As I watched that documentary, I was reminded of how that assassination changed TV broadcasting and the way it covered breaking news events. TV news coverage was still somewhat primitive six years later when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, but, if you compare footage of the JFK assassination coverage to footage of Apollo 11, you can see how much things had changed since the Kennedy assassination.
Everything was different after Kennedy was killed. Doesn't that make it one of the crimes of the century?
I'd like to think that it would. I'd certainly like to think that it ranks ahead of Mary Kay Letourneau and her forbidden love — which, by the way, did make the list.
Such a list is, of course, bound to spark arguments because people always believe something obvious has been left off the list.
I don't have too many qualms about TIME's list, but there are a few things that didn't make the list.
And their absences are conspicuous enough that I don't think I would recommend regarding TIME's list as the last word.
Before I get to that, I'll point out that I think most of the entries on the list do deserve to be there. Like, for example, the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. And the Manson family murders. And the Patty Hearst kidnapping. And Ted Bundy. And John Wayne Gacy. And Jeffrey Dahmer.
Likewise, the Unabomber case belongs on the list. So does O.J. Simpson.
And I definitely feel that the Columbine massacre belongs on the list. But if Columbine is there, why isn't the Virginia Tech massacre? Is it because Virginia Tech actually occurred in the 21st century? Well, the theft of Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream" took place the year before the shootings at Tech (2006), yet it made the list. And Andrea Yates killed her children in 2001, but those killings made the list, too.
If notorious killings and their perpetrators qualify as crimes of the century, why didn't the Boston Strangler make the list? Or the Hillside Strangler? Or the Night Stalker? Didn't all of those killers terrorize entire cities? How about BTK? Or Charlie Starkweather?
How about Aileen Wuornos, the female serial killer who was executed a few years ago and was the subject of an Academy Award–winning film starring Charlize Theron?
Any of them would make more sense to me than including Andrew Cunanan's murder of Gianni Versace in 1997 ... or the still unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
I'm thoroughly baffled as to why the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which took 168 lives, wasn't on the list.
And shouldn't the September 11 terrorist attacks be on the list?
If the list is expanded to include foreign events, the murders of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics deserve to be recognized.
For that matter, it seems to me that the Watergate break–in should be on the list, given all the things it put into motion.
Here's one that definitely took place in the 20th century but did not appear on the list — the John F. Kennedy assassination.
Nearly half a century later, that event still seems to call out from the recesses of history — never satisfactorily resolved, drawing renewed attention to unanswered questions.
Last week, I watched the premiere of a new documentary on The History Channel about the 24–hour period immediately following the shooting. It capped a week of Kennedy documentaries on The History Channel. I haven't seen any viewership numbers, but, folks, TV channels simply don't devote a week's worth of primetime programming to anything unless their programming directors have a pretty good idea that it's going to attract a lot of viewers.
As I watched that documentary, I was reminded of how that assassination changed TV broadcasting and the way it covered breaking news events. TV news coverage was still somewhat primitive six years later when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, but, if you compare footage of the JFK assassination coverage to footage of Apollo 11, you can see how much things had changed since the Kennedy assassination.
Everything was different after Kennedy was killed. Doesn't that make it one of the crimes of the century?
I'd like to think that it would. I'd certainly like to think that it ranks ahead of Mary Kay Letourneau and her forbidden love — which, by the way, did make the list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

