I really enjoy Professor David Wilson's analysis of a serial murderer. He points out that most start in their late 20s, in their local area and almost always stick to their own m.o. Using this as a starting point. We know the police views on Peter Tobin, Levi Belfield and John Cannan, but what about others such as Kiernan Kelly, Colin Ireland and Michael Lupo?
To be honest serial killers are not on my list of interesting things, mainly because they are done to death, so to speak, serial killer this, serial killer that. Many people want to attach every crime under the sun to serial killers. They are an exception. So I cant really comment.
However, I was tinkering with Mark Rountree and Patrick Mackay recently, they seem like good examples, both wanted to kill:
Mark Rountree (now called Mark Evans) is an interesting person. I believe something snapped in his mind. Coincidentally he committed his murders in Bradford at the same time as Peter Sutcliffe.
I can't say really, but I have his file and from memory, he seemed quite determined. Like he was just getting up each day and trying to figure out how he could get his next victim. Theres probably a lot more in his background that would shed light on whether he snapped etc.
There are quite a few cases where people kill more than one person and i'm just realising how hard it is to find them, which is sort of deliberate really. It frustrates me that people look for kill counts or child murders or murder weapons. Thats why that sort of search is not in place. Next to Roundtree in the listings is Natale Granato, are far more mundane case even though brutal.
But it really is endless. Even thinking about it bobbles my mind.
As a judge recently said in an ongoing case, the London au pair case, Sophie Lionnet (i think its still ongoing), truth is stranger than fiction. I have my own saying which goes along the lines, 'You cant make this up', with variants that include foul expressions.
Professor David Wilson always struck me as an odd case as he seemed to have got his credentials from being a prison governor, which is a fair and reasonable route, but I always think twice when reading work by people that reached such heights by hard graff init. His professorship always struck me as an accolade that you might give a footballer who came from the same town the university is in.
I preffer work by people that went in with accademic qualifications and spent years doing the thinking from the bottom up and are versed in the philiosphies, law and human science disipline as a foundation. THat is the basis of academia. Maths is a good foundation. I imagine that many of his deductive theories are based on his hard graft in the prisons, which is a bit like the mathematition who prooved 1 = 2 with thousands of lines of calculus which included an obscure note in the margin that 'assumed based on footnotes elsewhere that such as true', and continued. THe assumption of course being the missing link between the equations on both sides balancing.
Im more of a Sherlock Holmes man myself and he strikes me as a bit of a Lastrade.
Netherless, Fabian of the yard is a favourite in the uncut diamond department.
I do not rate Wilson, and find him a rather pompous media junkie to put it bluntly. Have watched his programmes, read a couple of books of his and have always been underwhelmed. His 'definite book' on serial killers was a bog standard work, with far better books out there. I think he likes/loves the sound of his own voice and intellect. Never shys away from telling us just how 'top' he is. And parading his credentials, as the poster earlier alluded to.
I can remember correcting him on Twitter (very politely btw) regarding errors he made on a TV documentary regarding the horrific David McGreavy case from 1973. Facts I found easily off the t'internet, by reading articles and accessing old newspapers. Four years later, I am still awaiting a reply. Two people who twittered him within seconds of my post, gushing about him, got replies.