True Crime

Floyd has repeatedly abused women whom he is currently dating, exs, or even just the friends of the women he’s dating. He’s a textbook abuser. He has done some of this stuff in public and some in front of his kids.

Floyd thinks he’s untouchable, and so far, he’s been right. The punishment has been all but non-existent. So, we are with an extremely violent abuser brazen enough to commit the violence in public, and he has avoided justice time and time again.

- This was not a very good investigation.

- Most if not all the more fun conspiracy theories are dumb.

- I don't give a crap about how Lizzie Borden grieved.

- Lizzie Borden is the best suspect, which is not quite the same thing as saying she was guilty.

- If she's guilty, then the motive was almost certainty not greed.

- The lack of blood on Lizzie (or anyone else) is strange, but unless you think a demon killed them, it seems like a problem with every suspect. It is definitely a sign of Lizzie being innocent, but again, it doesn't make sense no matter who did it.

- Some of the defense of Lizzie seems oddly sexist. It comes off very much as "she is too simple to play a murder."

- There is no evidence that she was lesbian, or even if she was one, that it had anything to do with the crime. This is a real crime with real victims, not your badly written fanfiction where you make up whatever turns you on.

- People act like Andrew was the primary target (either because of his Will, abuse, or he had some other kind of enemy). In my mind though, Abby was clearly the primary suspect. She was attacked more and attacked first.

- That being said, the killer apparently waited to kill Andrew, instead of escaping when they had the chance. This would imply that either Andrew was the primary target, or that the person had nowhere to go. As for the former, the problem is why someone would want to kill Andrew so badly that they were willing to continue to hide and wait for him after killing Abby. Even if the person was determined to kill Andrew, wouldn't he leave and come back.

1.) Being more interested in the killer than the victims is fine. This is not the same thing as supporting the killer. I just don’t believe in lying to myself by claiming that I am facinated by the victims more than the serial killer. The victims are typically too normal.

2.) Michael Peterson is very guilty (is this controversial still?)

3.) JonBenet parents are either not guilty or the evidence of the guilt is so weak that assumption of their guilt is irresponsible. Police butchered the case.

4.) I don’t necessary agree that victims names should be plastered everywhere. I get the value of remembering the victim, but I would hate to be remembered for being murdered. I don’t mean we should forget the victims or not honor them. I just think people take it to an extreme degree. It feels like pandering. Murder defines the murderer not the victim.

5.) When someone who is deeply mentally ill commits murder, they probably already had the inclination.

6.) At most Ted Bundy probably killed 40 people. H.H. Holmes probably killed less than that.

7.) Jack the Ripper had more in common with Richard Chase than BTK or Zodiac. He also did not write most of the notes.

8.) Albert DeSalvo commited at least one of the murderers, but there were multiple Boston stranglers

9.) Zodiac was a different sort of person than Joseph DeAngelo. DeAngelo didn’t really need the press. He never needed to talk. The Ted cruz joke would have alone gotten the zodiac to talk again. The dude is dead or in a coma or something.

10.) Criminal Profiling is more of an art than a science. People like to dismiss it because profilers are often wrong, but it is not meant to get the specific person. It is a tool that points police to certain direction, depending on the information provided to the profilers. Criminal Minds (which I adore) is incredibly misleading on this point.

11.) John Douglas and Robert Ressler contradict each other at times. The truth is probably in the middle. Douglas has an ego and definitely exaggerates at times (if you are interested in mbti, he’s an enfj), but I actually trust his account slightly more than ressler. The reason is that Douglas at least still credits Ressler. Ressler book seems to act like Douglas doesn’t exist.

This took place near the house of then 19 year old Will Purvis. Unsurprisingly, he was arrested. Of course, he denied and claimed he had an alibi. Interestingly, he had several witnesses that backed up his alibi, but they were all dismissed. He was sentenced to hanging, and declared himself an innocent man before being executed.

Well, he would have been executed but fate had other plans. The rope slipped, and when the sheriff tried to re-hang Purvis, the crowd started rioting. Later, he was sentence to death again. This time a group of supporters helped him escape. They hid him in a forest for four months, until Purvis finally surrendered. In return, he was given life in prison (instead of death).

In this case, life in prison only lasted two years. A key witness claimed he made a mistake in pointing to Purvis as the killer. Without his testimony, the evidence wasn’t there and Purvis ended up being pardoned. Not long after that, another man gave a death bed confession, which implicated another man and cleared Purvis for good. The story finally ends around 1920 when Purvis received a fee 5,000 dollars for his trouble.

Similar to Bundy, Holmes was also a master liar, and in my opinion he was probably better. All serial killers lie to a certain extent, but some of them are not actually persuasive. People just don’t believe someone they know could possibly a serial killer. We subconsciously reject this. Kenneth Bianchi is an example of a horrible liar who people only believed because he was so brazen (and likely some sort abuse in relation to his wife). H. H. Holmes would contradict himself a half dozen times, and people still believe it.

I’ve seen some debate on if Holmes was truly a serial killer from a modern perspective. I do think it victim count is much lower than people think (less than 27), however, I also think this is ridiculous. H. H. Holmes is a serial killer.

On the other hand, I do think this is useful to think if him as primarily a con artist and only a serial killer secondarily. The latter is obvious far worst, but I think the former gets us closer to an accurate understanding of his character. Would a private meeting with H. H. result in your death? Possibility. Would a private meeting with him result in him stealing from you? Almost definitely.

Okay, but honestly, who cares? Look, I personally don’t think the parents did it, but it’s a credible theory because, frankly, the police don’t have another suspect. However, the problem is that the police were so incompetent that people actually take this as serious evidence. Assuming the parents actually fed her pineapple it’s way more likely that they forgot under the stress. I mean what are people claiming here? You think she was killed through spongebob’s house? Do you think she choked on a pineapple and accidentally died, so the parents tried to cover it up strangled their own daughter... really? Even if the pineapple was involved, you know how you handle that? You tell police you fed her pineapple, which explains why they found evidence of that without making it sound suspicious. Simply denying it is a bad idea from the killer perspective.

“But they weren’t exactly very sophisticated criminals. Criminals do dumb things all the time.”

True. The problem with this case is people want to eat their cake, and then use said cake as evidence to accuse someone of murder (hmm is that that saying goes?). I mean that people are incredibly inconsistent. Either they are parents who made a horrible choice, but aren’t very sophistating, or they are highly intelligent psychopaths who not only killed their daughter, but actually degraded her dead body to cover up their crime. You can’t have both. Patty can’t a be stumbling buffoon one moment, and Moriarty the next.

“But no one else could have been in the house.”

Says who??? Do you mean because the evidence that no one walked into the broken window? The window that John said he broke? Cause that’s totally how to handle staging a crime: claim responsibility for the broken window. Anyways, this claim is pretty stupid if you’ve spent more than 10 minutes looking into true crime. What people should say is that their is not clear evidence that someone broke in, which is nowhere near the same thing. The truth is people break into people’s houses without anyone knowing all the time. Some serial killers even start that way. Yes, people even do it when others are in the house, and people even stay in for long periods of time and wait for people to come home.

“Why would you killed someone at someone’s house?”

Umm well honestly I have no idea. It’s weird. My best guess is that the girl wasn’t suppose to be murdered (at least in the house). It was an accident in an attempt kidnapping. Still, I admit it’s weird. You know what else is weird though? Why in the world would JonBenet’s parents take hours to stage their daughters murder only to keep her in their freaking house?!

“What about the motives?”

Yeah, the motive for both parents is extremely weak, and by weak I mean they don’t exist. “John killed her to cover up his abuse.” “Patty killed her because she peed in bed, and she snapped.” Yeah, there is no evidence for any of this. They are just assumptions because they assume guilt. “The Boulder police killed JonBenet to cover up their sex ring.” See, I can make up crap too.

“Patty/John did it but didn’t tell the other.”

Fine, but at a certain point both parents would have to be involved in the cover up. Is either parent going to risk their other child for the sake of their spouse?

“Her brother did it!”

Look, it’s possible, but am I only one who thinks this reeks of petty desperation. It’s basically saying that the evidence that the parents committed murder is flimsy, so maybe the 10 year old did it. The reasoning is the mostly just the lack of evidence that a stranger did it. This is nonsense though. A lack evidence of a stranger does not magically become positive evidence that a family member did it. Negative evidence does not become positive evidence. Especially when the the police just marched through the house and corrupted the crime scene.

“But they called a lawyer.”

Surprising, but very good move. I’d recommend more people to do it. Always ask for a lawyer.

Okay, so rant is over. Again, I’m not saying that the family didn’t do it. They very might have. It is of course statistically the most likely option. All that being said, I hope that if your loved one is ever murdered, that the Internet wait for a bit more evidence before acting like you’re guilty. Just in case though, you better remember what they ate last night.

I wanted to run a theory by some other fans of true crime podcasts. The theory is that true crime podcast can be divided into three separate genres: Case-focused, Episodic-focus, and Host-focus. I define genre as the relationship between audience expectations and the context that is created. 1.) Case-focus refers to podcasts which focus on a single case over a entire season. Good research is important for any true crime podcast, but it’s especially important here. This podcast sacrifices novelty of story in favor of in depth analysis of a single case. Any sign of shallow research destroys the entire point of listening. The host plays the role of an investigator, although this does mean he actually solves anything. Example: Serial 2.) Episodic-focus refers to podcasts which presents a new case ether episode or (in case of multiple parts) every couple of episodes. This podcast sacrifices the in depth style of case-focus of podcast for novelty. Listeners look forward learning about new cases. Because of this, episodic-focus podcast rely most on originality and good storytelling techniques. The host plays the role of a classic storyteller. Example: Casefile 3.) Host-focus is perhaps the most unique because the focus switches from the content of the podcasts to the host(s) themselves. This genre usually includes two or more hosts, which leads to fun commentary. Originality of topic matters the least in this genre. Indeed, it can even be a problem. Listeners tune in not hear about a new case, but instead to hear their favorite hosts share their views of on the case. Familiar with the case can actually amplify the experience because it allows listeners to feel like a part of the conversation. The hosts play the role of entertainers in the sense of Jim Fallon. Example: True Crime All the Time.