Serial Killers; love them or hate them?

Or perhaps come up with something different than a pattern.

briannasealock said:

An SK without a pattern is far more dangerous.

Click to expand...

They all have patterns. Just because law enforcement can't find the pattern even after catching them doesn't mean they don't have a pattern. It may be something literally no one else would notice, like the pattern of streetlamps on a persons face.

Perks said:

Absolutely. A good friend of mine was a homicide investigator for more than 20 years. He said in many (if not most) murder cases they know who did it, but what you know and what you can prove are two very different things.

The exception to this is serial killers and contract hits. Because the murderer has little to no connection with the victim, the investigators have to catch a lucky break with a convergence of luck, or a mistake on the part of the killer.

Click to expand...

Just found this thread while looking for the types of clues that would be in a mystery about serial killers.

Yes, luck has to be a part of it, definitely. In my book, all of the victims or, in one case, her husband, frequented the same high class "house of ill repute." It was luck that one victim had a note on his personal, previously hidden calendar. So this is my final clue, but I'm struggling to lay clues that lead to this same conclusion.

I watched the pilot of "Bluebloods" last night because my parents love it and I was incredibly insulted by the stupid clue - a dropped doll was found that only three people in the US had because it was a prototype from China. How absurd and convenient for the detectives. Obviously, people don't watch it for the mind challenge.

Hey, any clue hints, gratefully accepted!

In the UK there is a TV quiz show called Only Connect. It is all about finding connections between apparently disparate things.

The easiest questions are those where there is only one answer that could work. For instance:

1 - Kennilworthy Whisp
2 - Newt Scamander
3 - Robert Galbraith
4 - JK Rowling

Answer - JK Rowling has published books under all four names.


Where it gets really hard is the middle of the show. They give you 16 different answers in a grid, which form four groups like the one above. What's especially tricky is that many of the answers could go into more than one group. (This is the "Wall" round, and you can play them online here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2Z79DzzJY8w2R58bpftq14k/quiz).

That's how you make great clues - find things that could be a dozen different things, all equally valid.

onesecondglance said:

In the UK there is a TV quiz show called Only Connect. It is all about finding connections between apparently disparate things.

The easiest questions are those where there is only one answer that could work. For instance:

1 - Kennilworthy Whisp
2 - Newt Scamander
3 - Robert Galbraith
4 - JK Rowling

Answer - JK Rowling has published books under all four names.


Where it gets really hard is the middle of the show. They give you 16 different answers in a grid, which form four groups like the one above. What's especially tricky is that many of the answers could go into more than one group. (This is the "Wall" round, and you can play them online here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2Z79DzzJY8w2R58bpftq14k/quiz).

That's how you make great clues - find things that could be a dozen different things, all equally valid.

Click to expand...

You have great shows over there!! We have the freaking New Jersey Housewives. Ugh.

Thanks!! I will check them out. Good practice,
Nancy

I don't think SK have been overused... but... there are some overused tropes that are easy to fall into when doing SK.

Others have already pointed out many of the tropes such as super smart and race to catch him before he kills again.

The one plot line I think is overused is the calling in the Psychological Profiler. There are so few actual profilers out there, but yet in many stories some rural deputy is able to call up his big city buddy to get a profiler sent over.

briannasealock said:

I can't remember the exact year this case took place but it was before companies put tamper proof packaging on things at the store. And you know not to buy something if the packaging is mess up. ya know?

Anyway, there was a woman who killed her husband with arsenic in a headache pill. She took the plastic apart and took the medicine out and replaces it with arsenic. But she had to cover it up. So she tampered with many different bottle of headache medicine at several stores. People unwittingly bought them and died. I can't remember how the cops finally caught her, but that's why we have tamper proof packaging now. I think it may have taken place in the 70's.

And that's a thing about lady SK's. They tend to kill more through poisons. And they kill people close to them. Also, sometimes, they'll kill their patients and we call them Angel's of Mercy.

Click to expand...

The Chicago Tylenol murders took place in 1982. 7 people died, although there were suspects, no-one was ever charged, and the crime, I believe, is still unsolved.
This led to the tamper-proof packaging legislation, etc.
In 1986 Stella Nickell tampered with Excedrin packaging, in an effort to mask her attempt to murder her husband. The husband and an unrelated woman died. Thanks to the anti-tamper legislation, which made tampering a federal crime, the murderer was convicted and sentenced to 90 years.

See, I'd rather read about a murder done for 'real' reasons, like greed, or infidelity, or vengeance, rather than some serial killer who kills people because that's what he does.

RJ_Beam said:

I don't think SK have been overused... but... there are some overused tropes that are easy to fall into when doing SK.

Others have already pointed out many of the tropes such as super smart and race to catch him before he kills again.

The one plot line I think is overused is the calling in the Psychological Profiler. There are so few actual profilers out there, but yet in many stories some rural deputy is able to call up his big city buddy to get a profiler sent over.

Click to expand...

Though I really liked UK series Cracker with Robbie Coltrane, I'd imagine the DC-area snipers were a hit to their credibility, at least for some.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...0212160297_1_van-zandt-serial-killers-snipers

onesecondglance said:

In the UK there is a TV quiz show called Only Connect. It is all about finding connections between apparently disparate things.

The easiest questions are those where there is only one answer that could work. For instance:

1 - Kennilworthy Whisp
2 - Newt Scamander
3 - Robert Galbraith
4 - JK Rowling

Answer - JK Rowling has published books under all four names.


Where it gets really hard is the middle of the show. They give you 16 different answers in a grid, which form four groups like the one above. What's especially tricky is that many of the answers could go into more than one group. (This is the "Wall" round, and you can play them online here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2Z79DzzJY8w2R58bpftq14k/quiz).

That's how you make great clues - find things that could be a dozen different things, all equally valid.

Click to expand...

I wanted to add something about red herrings and twists here, because I forgot to in my earlier posts. I occasionally see a misconception (usually from people unfamiliar with the MTS genre) that red herrings and twists are random things thrown in to keep the reader guessing until the end. I disagree.


Let's start with twists. Using the Only Connect four-clue structure again:

Clue 1 is "Michelangelo". First thought is a painter, but it could be half a dozen other things .

Clue 2 is "Leonardo". Looking more and more likely to be painters, specifically renaissance painters.

Clue 3 is "Donatello". By this point, painters seems to be utterly certain.

Then clue 4 is revealed: "Splinter". This is the twist.

Turns out it was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles all along! The twist doesn't invalidate the original clues - it just puts them in a different light. They still make sense, but now they make a different sense when considered with the twist (note, for instance, that it's just "Leonardo" and not "Leonardo da Vinci" as usually written). Importantly, the twist is a valid and key part of the set of clues - it's not just something random thrown in there.


Now, the same sequence with a red herring:

1 - Michelangelo
2 - Leonardo
A - Copernicus
3 - Donatello
4 - Splinter

In the context of 1, 2, and A, you might think, "A-ha! it's not painters, it's renaissance polymaths! That was a clever trick." (Or, you might not, and in the case of fiction, it may take quite a lot of detective work for the main character to be able to make this conclusion.)

But then when given clue 3, it doesn't make sense. You have to disregard it - and once you have clue 4, you can see that it doesn't fit at all with the rest of the set.


You can go further, if you want, and include more than one red herring:

1 - Michelangelo
2 - Leonardo
A - Copernicus
3 - Donatello
B - Galileo
C - Kepler
D - Huygens
4 - Splinter

By the time you get to clue B, you're thinking - "right, it is polymaths, and 3 (Donatello) is the red herring. I should disregard it."

But then you get C, and then D. The polymath thing stops working. Sure, these are famously intelligent people. But the connection isn't holding together as it should.


There are two ways this could end. The first is that you realise that clues A-D aren't part of the main set. You think that it goes:

1, 2, 3 - painters
A, B, C, D - 17th Century astronomers

Then, as in the first example, you get clue 4 and realise the first set is actually Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the twist).

OR

You get clue 4, and only then do you realise that the two sets are

1, 2, 3, 4 - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
A, B, C, D - 17th Century astronomers

The difference is that here, the twist actually manages to provide the answer to both sets of clues, by making it clear just what you're looking at with the "main" set.


This structure, with lots of red herrings, is actually a subplot when you think about it. For me, these are the most satisfying kind of subplot: they closely intertwine with the main plot, but they have their own resolution and internal logic - it's just that that logic doesn't become clear until you realise they're not the same thing as the main plot.

The two "endings" given above are both ways of resolving that subplot. The first allows you to "clear the board" and focus on the main mystery. This is useful in thriller-type plots. The second keeps all the cards in play until the final clue, which is great in a straight mystery but could be confusing if you don't handle it right.


There is a virtually unlimited number of plots you can create using these elements. Think about having more than one twist - say there was a clue 5 that totally transformed things all over again, just like clue 4 did above. Or try having multiple sets of red herrings, where a third set of clues might complete sets 1 and 2 equally.

Just make sure you don't confuse yourself too much...

I got a bit tired of SK fiction but I like when they aren't masterminds, just all too easy to overlook, the people who blend in and know how to manipulate us on a base level by looking pathetic.

My current WIP has a serial killer as the second POV. Something new for me, writing two POV's, and especially since one is a whack job serial killer.

I would say love them - but that sounds bad!

My serial killer, whom we'll call Mr Bad Guy, is as removed from the stereotypes as I can make him. Normal childhood with normal parents, intelligent enough but not a genius, doesn't savagely murder blondes/brunettes/redheads because they remind him of the girl who knocked him back when he asked her to the prom and he doesn't like to get his hands dirty - a nice clean kill. He kills when he feels he needs to, and only when he's set to gain something (not necessarily materially) or if something might not work out in his favour if he doesn't kill the person(s).

Thomas Pluck said:

I got a bit tired of SK fiction but I like when they aren't masterminds, just all too easy to overlook, the people who blend in and know how to manipulate us on a base level by looking pathetic.

Click to expand...

I agree. A serial killer who is the guy next door is a lot scarier than the obvious standouts. My fascination with serial killers is more about the psychological aspects of why they do it and why they pick out certain people.

krypticjotter said:

I agree. A serial killer who is the guy next door is a lot scarier than the obvious standouts. My fascination with serial killers is more about the psychological aspects of why they do it and why they pick out certain people.

Click to expand...

Have you checked this out? It's a bit long, but has some great insights.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder

Ken Hoss, thank you for the link. I skimmed through it, very interesting. I bookmarked and will definitely read the whole page. Thanks again ~ KJ

We have A True Crime elective at our school, and it is popular. An interesting fact is the percentage of serial killers who suffered a brain injury. I think most are interested by the how and why, which is why Thomas Harris has such success.

In the end, we all look for a why when confronted with the history, and the next question would be how to find and catch them before they do more.


I don't necessarily chalk it up to morbid curiousity, but to gaining an understanding of world events and the human psyche.

krypticjotter said:

Ken Hoss, thank you for the link. I skimmed through it, very interesting. I bookmarked and will definitely read the whole page. Thanks again ~ KJ

Click to expand...

Glad to help. Definitely a lot to absorb. I do a LOT of research. I think I love research almost as I love writing.

If you haven't read this one, you need to. One of the most prolific serial killers in the U.S.

http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/tedbundy.htm

Ken you sound like me - I am definitely a "data person". I love Google.
C.bronco - I would definitely take that class! I think everyone views my interest as being "the weird person". lol but it really is more of curiosity as to the why's of personalities and how people live. I think in this day and age, it is ridiculous that law enforcement isn't more "linked up" with their computer systems.

I actually have a half-filled-in outline of a story where the POV jumps back and forth between a serial killer and the detective who's hunting him. It was my first decent experiment with writing an antihero. The idea is to start out with a regular catch-the-killer thriller, and to then reveal bits of why the killer is doing it, and reveal secrets about the detective and the manhunt operation, until the reader isn't sure who to root for. It's called A Debt Of Scars, and I'm pretty pleased with how it's turning out. I have a "thing" - a sort of life rule, I guess - about not judging people until you know their story, and while this is definitely an extreme example, it does illustrate the idea of getting inside someone's head to the point where you understand their choices. If you've read Orson Scott Card's Speaker For The Dead, you'll be familiar with the concept.

RJ_Beam said:

I don't think SK have been overused... but... there are some overused tropes that are easy to fall into when doing SK.

Others have already pointed out many of the tropes such as super smart and race to catch him before he kills again.

The one plot line I think is overused is the calling in the Psychological Profiler. There are so few actual profilers out there, but yet in many stories some rural deputy is able to call up his big city buddy to get a profiler sent over.

Click to expand...

I do think serial killers are overused. They make for all kinds of excitement and suspense and gore, and they are fashionable in fiction now, but I prefer the murderer with a motive to kill a specific person, or specific people. (Not that I haven't enjoyed serial-killer fiction from time to time.)

As for the post quoted above, I agree that calling in the Psychological Profiler is overdone, but some interesting cases in real life are those where the professional profiler has turned out to be wrong. For example, the profiler opines that the serial killer is a male in his 30s with a limited education, works at a low-level job and is a loner. When the killer is caught, he turns out to be a wealthy attorney in his 50s with a family and an active social life. If your MC is bright enough, he/she might outguess the PP all along and be proven right at the end.

Personally, I don't find S.k.s all that interesting. Probably because I don't like gore and torture and I'm not particularly interested in what makes them tick. Evil is evil...

What I like are the stories where an everyday schmoe can be motivated to do something out of the ordinary (like murder). Think Fargo

Elaine Margarett said:

Personally, I don't find S.k.s all that interesting. Probably because I don't like gore and torture and I'm not particularly interested in what makes them tick. Evil is evil...

Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't like serial killers either... they just want to kill people, and there's nothing bigger in the works, so there's nothing particularly interesting about what they're up to.

I prefer people with propery schemes. The closest thing to serial killers that I actually enjoy reading is a masterind or hireling with a trademark method of offing people. Sure they've got a pattern/technique and a reason they use it, but that mystery is just a bonus on top of the actual plot (i.e. stopping the villain's plan).