Who is your favourite serial killer, and why?

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Remmie said:

Just blitzed through night stalker and the Yorkshire ripper documentaries. Compelling and harrowing in equal measure. Had no idea about the stories of either, the fucking incompetence of the police was outrageous in the Ripper story. 

 

Why are serial killer stories so fascinating? Evasion from the law and the path to their eventual capture, I guess. 

Half 8 in the morning and you’ve just finished two serial killer documentaries? Have a nice weekend 

[Remmie]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Half 8 in the morning and you’ve just finished two serial killer documentaries? Have a nice weekend 

Haha I work nights and caught the last 2 ripper episodes on my lunch, then nipped out for some stabbing and a run wank before logging on here. 

 

I'm going to watch one of the recommendations 2 pages back next. 

[Bjornebye]

30 minutes ago, Remmie said:

Haha I work nights and caught the last 2 ripper episodes on my lunch, then nipped out for some stabbing and a run wank before logging on here. 

 

I'm going to watch one of the recommendations 2 pages back next. 

What the fuck is a run wank???

[Remmie]

7 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

What the fuck is a run wank???

Brace yourself; it comprises of 2 key elements; running and wanking.

 

¡ COMBINED! 

[Remmie]

The latest thing I've caught is not really in this genre exactly but feels a bit like it; don't fuck with cats. 

 

A fucked up story, though the main amateur detective is annoying the story makes up for it. 

[cloggypop]

[cloggypop]

On 23/01/2021 at 08:45, Anubis said:

Leave Brendan out of this.

He fucking started it. 

[No2]

Jeffrey Dahmer is the first celebrity killer I remember. I must have been of 13 or 14 when he was in the papers and remember thinking what a mad cunt he was. Keeping the heads and hearts in your fridge is worth a few extra digits, any one can dump or bury bodies, keeping them in every room in a small apartment is some going. 

[General Dryness]

1 hour ago, Remmie said:

The latest thing I've caught is not really in this genre exactly but feels a bit like it; don't fuck with cats. 

 

A fucked up story, though the main amateur detective is annoying the story makes up for it. 

Fucking good watch that, recommend. 

[littletedwest]

I liked Shipman. I remember him getting arrested for 1. Thinking he's a doctor, so he's not done it. It was mad to watch unfold. 

[Mudface]

9 hours ago, Remmie said:

The latest thing I've caught is not really in this genre exactly but feels a bit like it; don't fuck with cats. 

 

A fucked up story, though the main amateur detective is annoying the story makes up for it. 

It was an interesting story, but the way it was framed really pissed me off. The amateur sleuths basically got his name handed to them, and then provided the killer with a Scooby Doo style fan club, and possibly goaded the narcissist into some of his actions. To then turn to the camera and ask if the viewers of the documentary are also complicit is ridiculous, cheeky fat cunt. This IMDB review says it a lot better than I can-

 

At the very end of the three part series one of the main interviewees asked if we, the viewers, are complicit in making this man into a serial killer. She seems to accept a certain responsibility by (perhaps) goading the killer with her internet activity in regard to him, the killer.

Her group becomes obsessed with hunting the killer and in a way provided the killer a fanclub. At the end she asks if we, the viewers of the documentary, are not complicit in his crime also. I say we are not.

She provided no startlingly profound commentary on the human condition. It is a known that society has a morbid curiosity with serial killers. What her and her friends did was provide this serial killer a direct fanclub.

The internet sleuths early on get a lead, from some mysterious source, which gives them the name of a suspect. This is important. What I do not understand is why the documentary never goes back to this. Who was behind this mystery Facebook message that revealed the name, Luca Magnotta? Was it Magnotta himself? Due to his apparent narcissism he is a likely candidate. If this is the case he likely could have, just as easily, tried to get in touch with the newspaper like past serial killers to play his cat and mouse game.

The Facebook group provided nothing more than a fan club for Magontta in his killing. If Magnotta is not the one which revealed the name, however, then it is someone who easily could have gone to the police, which is a step they likely should have taken regardless. Ultimately to the two main internet sleuths, I say: do not pawn your guilt off on us unsuspecting viewers; you provide no profound commentary on the human condition by saying we are complicit due to our morbid curiosity with serial killers; you provided a fanclub which the serial killer had direct contact with, which gave him exactly what he wanted.

The question for these types of events (e.g. mass shooters and serial killers) getting publicity and whether it is right is nothing new. You internet sleuths, however, are directly responsible for providing him attention.

One more important detail they left off was who filmed inside the workplace (casino) of the one internet sleuth? I don't see how Magnotta could have done it. Was it a fellow Facebook group member messing with her? Or was it her trying to make it more dramatic, trying to get attention, et cetera. They never go back to it. It seems out of place and random, and it never gets answered as to where this video comes from.

Ultimately, all the internet sleuths provide is an interesting narrative to give this documentary more depth. The other narratives from the police, attorneys, psychologist, mother are interesting as well. But these internet sleuths provided nothing of actual substance. They tried to make them seem interesting, and important with their "detective work" but the key info they received was from an anonymous source which literally gave them the name of the person.

[Remmie]

1 hour ago, Mudface said:

It was an interesting story, but the way it was framed really pissed me off. The amateur sleuths basically got his name handed to them, and then provided the killer with a Scooby Doo style fan club, and possibly goaded the narcissist into some of his actions. To then turn to the camera and ask if the viewers of the documentary are also complicit is ridiculous, cheeky fat cunt. This IMDB review says it a lot better than I can-

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

At the very end of the three part series one of the main interviewees asked if we, the viewers, are complicit in making this man into a serial killer. She seems to accept a certain responsibility by (perhaps) goading the killer with her internet activity in regard to him, the killer.

Her group becomes obsessed with hunting the killer and in a way provided the killer a fanclub. At the end she asks if we, the viewers of the documentary, are not complicit in his crime also. I say we are not.

She provided no startlingly profound commentary on the human condition. It is a known that society has a morbid curiosity with serial killers. What her and her friends did was provide this serial killer a direct fanclub.

The internet sleuths early on get a lead, from some mysterious source, which gives them the name of a suspect. This is important. What I do not understand is why the documentary never goes back to this. Who was behind this mystery Facebook message that revealed the name, Luca Magnotta? Was it Magnotta himself? Due to his apparent narcissism he is a likely candidate. If this is the case he likely could have, just as easily, tried to get in touch with the newspaper like past serial killers to play his cat and mouse game.

The Facebook group provided nothing more than a fan club for Magontta in his killing. If Magnotta is not the one which revealed the name, however, then it is someone who easily could have gone to the police, which is a step they likely should have taken regardless. Ultimately to the two main internet sleuths, I say: do not pawn your guilt off on us unsuspecting viewers; you provide no profound commentary on the human condition by saying we are complicit due to our morbid curiosity with serial killers; you provided a fanclub which the serial killer had direct contact with, which gave him exactly what he wanted.

The question for these types of events (e.g. mass shooters and serial killers) getting publicity and whether it is right is nothing new. You internet sleuths, however, are directly responsible for providing him attention.

One more important detail they left off was who filmed inside the workplace (casino) of the one internet sleuth? I don't see how Magnotta could have done it. Was it a fellow Facebook group member messing with her? Or was it her trying to make it more dramatic, trying to get attention, et cetera. They never go back to it. It seems out of place and random, and it never gets answered as to where this video comes from.

Ultimately, all the internet sleuths provide is an interesting narrative to give this documentary more depth. The other narratives from the police, attorneys, psychologist, mother are interesting as well. But these internet sleuths provided nothing of actual substance. They tried to make them seem interesting, and important with their "detective work" but the key info they received was from an anonymous source which literally gave them the name of the person.

 

 

Yeah bang on, I was thinking that about how the sleuths were just handed his name but didn't want to leave a spoiler. Tough shit now! 

 

Also they need to address the other pair of hands in one of Magnotta's animal killing videos. I'm not saying it's Manny but there is some other cunt with a level of culpability 

[Mudface]

20 minutes ago, Remmie said:

Yeah bang on, I was thinking that about how the sleuths were just handed his name but didn't want to leave a spoiler. Tough shit now! 

 

Also they need to address the other pair of hands in one of Magnotta's animal killing videos. I'm not saying it's Manny but there is some other cunt with a level of culpability 

Yeah, that was why I started looking through the IMDB reviews as I wondered if it'd been answered, a few people say it is-

 

I had to write this because they seems to be a lot of people here questioning about the third hand in the video. It was Luka's neighbour who owned the python snake.

 

and

 

First of all, a lot of people are asking about the third hand. I researched and found this from John Green: Who are the 2nd set of hands in the python video? Answer: A researcher for the CBC who worked on the Fifth Estate episode on Luka went to Montreal and talked to some of Lukas neighbors, and a female said it was her in the python video and she did not know a kitten was going to be killed.

You can find this yourself with a quick google search.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Bumping for @A Red

[Jack the Sipper]

Cold case investigators have named a Gary Francis Poste as the Zodiac Killer. 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/10/06/zodiac-killer-identified-linked-to-sixth-murder-cold-case-squad/

[Bjornebye]

18 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Cold case investigators have named a Gary Francis Poste as the Zodiac Killer. 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/10/06/zodiac-killer-identified-linked-to-sixth-murder-cold-case-squad/

No wonder he calls himself Kurtz Willard with a name like that 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Peter Sutcliffe, no nonsense,  didn't need a fancy weapon, unreal hair and beard, no contest.

[Kevin D]

1 hour ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Cold case investigators have named a Gary Francis Poste as the Zodiac Killer. 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/10/06/zodiac-killer-identified-linked-to-sixth-murder-cold-case-squad/

 

[manwiththestick]

Bump, just because of watching the Dahmer show.

 

[Section_31]

One of Murdoch's gobshites asking about serial killers. The Internet is a strange place at times.