"I was born with the devil in me. I could not help the fact that I was a murderer, no more than the poet can help the inspiration to sing."
So I'm reading The Devil and the White City right now and I'm finding the bits on the serial killer far more interesting than the struggle to build the fair. The latter is interesting no doubt, ecspecially since I basically lived right on the site practically and never knew it. Of course, the entire area is now a ghetto which makes me wonder what in the world happened that none of the buildings survived and it became so blighted.
Anyway, I was thinking that it might be sort of interesting to be a serial killer. I can sort of see the appeal from a control and domination standpoint. One thing that's for certain is that it was certainly easier to be one at the turn of the century than it would be nowadays. H. H. Holmes, who has been dubbed as america's first serial killer, was able to slaughter what seems like dozens of people with little or not notice whatsoever. The minimum number of dead he left in his wake is pegged around 50, which makes him one of the most successful serial murderers of all time. In fact, he practically opened up a roach motel for victims, renting out rooms in his torture-chambered hotel to unattached women and then offing them one by one. In a case of waste not, want not, he would then often have the corpses stripped of flesh and reassembled as skeletons that he would sell to local medical schools for a large profit.
Now, I'm sure serial killer is a career path off the beaten path, but sometimes I wonder if it's something I could learn to dabble at. Frankly, I'm not sure I have the right abilities and characteristics, but there are many people stuck in jobs they're sort of unsuited for. People always talk about how charismatic serial killers often are, if in a strange and creepy sort of way. It's been described that your classic psychopath can mimic being a warm, engaging, and generally lovable human being but that there is always something a bit 'off' about their nature. Now, I'm not sure that I have the charisma component to lure victims to me, but I figure it's always something I could work on. Maybe acting classes or something of that sort.
More troublesome is my uneasiness about causing bloody death to 'innocent victims'. I have absolutely no desire to wade through the blood and viscera of my victims. On that score, I'm more than a bit squeemish and thus would make for a very poor slaughter killer like Jack the Ripper. I also don't seem to have any odd motivations like the desire to eat human flesh, wear human skin, collect organs, etc. I don't figure that any of that is absolutely necessary, but I'm sure it helps with the fame and headlines.
Finally, I dunno that I could just kill people who didn't somehow deserve to die. That sorta makes things a bit difficult since it's not often you see someone go on a killing spree amongst death row prisoners or something. I'm pretty sure I could happily kill islamoterrorists, but they're quite far away in general, and not to mention they usually have guns and bombs and crap. That would make things infinitely more difficult. I guess in the end I could just settle for killing people I have personal grudges against, but that seems sorta prosaic. I think that in order to qualify as a real serial killer you more or less have to kill practical strangers anyway.
Oh well. Damn thing just sounds harder than it seems when you finally get down to it.
Note: If I ever go nuts one day and am found drenched in the blood of multiple victims, please be sure to direct the news media to this entry so they can point out the 'signs' were obviously there.
It just gets more and more interesting. Just a day or two ago the talk was all about the DNA found on a fake fingernail that was consistant with one of the duke lacrosse players. Now it seems that there was something even bigger in the report, an almost unbelievably pivotal result if it is shown to be accurate.
tests showed genetic material from a 'single male source' was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players.
'In other words, it appears this woman had sex with a male,' said Cheshire, who spoke at a news conference with other defense attorneys in the case. 'It also appears with certainty it wasn't a Duke lacrosse player.'"
This boggles the mind. Despite speculation of condoms or 'foreign objects', the accuser's story never mentioned either in any source that has been released to the public including the search warrants with her statements. It always seemed pretty remarkable that nothing was recovered when she claims that she was anally, vaginally, and orally assaulted. Now we have this claim by the defense that semen was recovered and it's a definitive non-match. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of bombshell that is.
Does it mean that she was attacked and simply not by a lacrosse player? This would mean that she's likely put a bunch of people through a literal hell with mistaken identifications.
Does it mean instead that no assault took place at all at the party and the bruising was from an incident either prior or after? Maybe there was no attack at all and there was simply consentual sex with some unknown individual.