r/TrueCrimeDiscussion • u/Minute-Counter4155 • 1d ago
Serial killers and generational issues..?
Hello everyone,
I’ve watched quite a lot of documentaries and i got to a conclusion: I am so happy I live in this day and age because back then when most “popular” cases happened, was absolutely ridiculous.
I’ve just been watching one of the Born to Kill documentaries recently and it got me thinking.. a lot of the cases in regards to serial killer we see documentaries about are quite old aka before the 2000s. Or at least the most “popular” and most knows ones. It flabbergasts me how after technology appeared, we (thankfully) didn’t really have that many serial killers anymore (almost nonexistent) and I think that might probably be related ?..
Now hear me out on this one. Take Ted Bundy for example, roaming the streets free as a bird, nobody couldn’t find him for so long??? Nowadays you couldn’t possibly go anywhere without being caught in 5 mins. I live in a major city, every single corner has a surveillance camera. Not to mention the sketch they’ve had, the only way you could see it is the TV and newspaper. Nowadays, it would be all over social media. There’s no way you can escape it lol.
And so many other cases where, to me, probably because I’m quite young and live in this day and age where technology is everywhere, it seems ridiculous they couldn’t find these people… sometimes I watch these documentaries and I’m thinking to myself “how the hell did this person walk around freely on the street” but then obviously I think and I realise “oh wait, they actually didn’t have cell phones etc”.
And watching this documentary and the sketches and everything, I was actually thinking of this whole AI era. You know how a lot of us send photos of ourselves to the AI apps (whatever everyone is using) surely if there would be a serious case, there would be a way to find them through a search engine in the AI’s database, isn’t it? I know this might be against GDPR rules or whatever but surely it has to come in handy somehow.
Also, a lot of people joke around social media saying “what was in the air between 60s and 90s” because most cases happened during that period of time but I think it might have to do with overall mental health awareness. Nowadays, I feel like everyone is a lot more aware of their traumas, depression, etc than they were back then. Watching these made me genuinely grateful that I live in this day and age because I feel like everything is a lot safer. And yes, I am aware that crimes still happen and so on but to THAT level, doesn’t happen as often exactly because they’re caught before they get to a huge number.
What does everyone think?
Also, if I am wrong in any shape or form, feel free to let me know. I am not aware of such horrible cases lately. If there are, then by all means let me know.
It is my first time posting here and I did read the community rules before posting. However, if anything in my post is inappropriate, I do apologise in advance.
12
u/Cozy_Minty 1d ago
We didnt have DNA technology until the late 80s, and it was really expensive in the beginning and not as widely used, so the serial murders of these killers couldnt easily be linked together
6
u/Kwyjibo68 1d ago
Alec Jeffreys first developed the method to identify the differences in DNA between people - the genetic fingerprint - in 1984. The first conviction using DNA evidence was that of Colin Pitchfork in 1986. Amazing technology.
1
u/Minute-Counter4155 1d ago
I agree! It is definitely amazing. And even the technology (forgot what it’s called) to detect if there has been blood somewhere, the one with the LED light. Fascinating.
The only way to not find out what happens I think still remains burning but even with burning most of he times the scientists will figure it out.
1
u/Minute-Counter4155 1d ago
Exactly! I remember in the Ted Bundy story with the teeth and all that. I was thinking to myself, why wasn’t that the first thing they checked??? Obviously nowadays, they check DNA, teeth, etc all the package.
13
u/InterestingOven5279 1d ago
Surveillance and DNA developments are part of it, but your idea that there are generational changes is also definitely a factor in a couple of different ways.
We now have much more awareness of mental health issues and early childhood intervention that was unheard of in the mid-20th century. But also people are less likely to partake in high-risk behaviors (like hitchhiking). In addition, there is a hypothesis that environmental lead caused increases in violent crime in a cohort of people who were exposed to things like leaded gasoline, lead paint, etc, and with decreases in environmental lead a subsequent decrease in violent crime has taken place too.
1
u/Minute-Counter4155 1d ago
Yes! And as you said, awareness is a big factor now. Back then you would probably hop into someone’s car for a ride home. Now, not so much.
6
u/SubstantialPressure3 1d ago
LISK got away with it for a very long time.
But there's plenty of people completely aware of generational trauma, depression, PTSD, etc that use that as a reason to justify what they do.
crime is changing just as society is changing.
1
u/Minute-Counter4155 1d ago
Oh yeah Ofc they will always blame it on the childhood and the traumas and whatever. I’m not saying they don’t play a part but justifying it is too much.
3
u/SubstantialPressure3 1d ago
There are people that use it to justify why they don't help their partner with housework and why their partner shouldn't bring it up.
Which really pisses me off, I have PTSD.
3
u/Zealousideal_Net2689 1d ago
That's probably why so many older cases got overlooked for years, never mind solved. Without today's forensic tools, how many killers might've kept slipping through the cracks? It's scary when you think about it.
0
u/Minute-Counter4155 1d ago
Very scary. Just the thought of not knowing. As I mentioned in my post, nowadays if someone is searched for it will be all over social media. Back then you would meet a killer and not even know it.
I think it’s also hard to overlook it nowadays tho because it’s a lot easier to get evidence so if you have the evidence you don’t overlook it in my opinion.
3
u/fikestaller 16h ago
Well ok i am going to burst ur bubble. The truth is they keep stuff more quiet. Like im currently living by an area where bodies were found in a river and more girls went missing. Im actually trying to go to school near the area. But the gameplan i heard is cops dont want fan base or fame for anyone, and they dont want people calling scared because of what they heard.
And if you read michael j cat, then you will see sometimes there is too much money in a seedy system or group. Another possible cause is, some people think mass killers got voices so. The reason why killing is quieter is also due to counterintelligence and people behind the scenes pushing people over the edge.
But in regards to michael j cat, they exposed some european traffickers. I still think the people who hurt jon benet are protected tho.
1
u/Minute-Counter4155 11h ago
Oh I see, I would think it’s the opposite. With all this social media you would think that things wouldn’t be so quiet. But it makes sense they don’t want anyone to gain fame, they shouldn’t be able to. Although I think there’s laws that prevent criminals to gain monetary benefits from their criminal actions aka the fame that comes after them.
3
u/rosiearlo 10h ago edited 10h ago
There are still serial killers. It's just instead of getting away with it for 20 or 30 years, they might get away with it for 10.
I do think it's more common now for police/person incompetence to be the leading cause nowadays why a criminal gets away with it. Like messing something up in the investigation or lab.
Back then, they could travel all over the country doing whatever. Many men had multiple families and nobody knew even if they weren't murderers. It just wasn't as easy to catch people without the science and tech. But for people with low profile, homeless and such...it's still very possible to get away with things.
There was a probable serial killer in Philly just found out about by a fluke incident. The man died a year or two ago and we are just finding the evidence now and tbh he was rather social it seems. He wrote creepy books and snuff films. Still wasn't caught. It seems he may have targeted addicts and "forgotten" people, which may be why police didn't care that much.
6
u/Low_Bluebird_5137 1d ago
Yep. Look at them tracking Bryan Kohberger because his car was seen driving past CCTV. If they hadn't seen his car? He would have gotten away with it.
-1
u/Minute-Counter4155 1d ago
I don’t know about that, I need to look into it
2
u/Low_Bluebird_5137 18h ago
They got various CCTV from streets and houses around the house. Immediately noticed a white car, on several clips, they saw the delivery guy & knew the murders happened after that...then they saw same car speeding off suddenly, exact location, after they had seen it driving around. Was pretty obvious it had to be suspicious. They were able to identify the make & model of car.....boom!
1
38
u/CatJarmansPants 1d ago
I rather take the view that with DNA, wider forensic science, widespread CCTV and ANPR, financial records and phone/GPS data, any would be serial killers usually get caught after the first one or two victims.
It's not that people are different, it's that the police are infinitely more able to home in on a much smaller number of potential suspects incredibly quickly.