[ SECRET POST #4685 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4685 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #671.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Wtf does "biggest" serial killer mean?

[(Anonymous)]

You might want to just read the wikipedia. Dude killed a lot of babies, but there wasn't much useful physical evidence for court.

[(Anonymous)]

Did he ACTUALLY kill babies or did he "kill babies" in the pro-forced birther sense?

[(Anonymous)]

From my experience growing up among Pro Lifers, they often can't tell the difference. Because they struggle to understand how consent works.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a disingenuous way to prescribe their position and that a fetus is therefore as much a human life as the mother is. Their position is that life begins at conception. That certainly isn't backed up by science. But they do understand how consent works, they'd just argue that there are two different people whose consent or lack thereof has to be dealt with.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

But as you said, their position isn't backed up by science, so there's really no reason to treat it as if it's legitimate.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, that's the crux of the matter. He performed third trimester abortions by inducing labor and euthanizing the fetuses once they were out of the womb. It's up to the beholder to decide if that is an abortion or killing.

[(Anonymous)]

And you just lost any credibility with the "forced birther" nonsense. Grow up, and educate yourself on basic biology.

[(Anonymous)]

I did read it. His crimes don't make him the most prolific serial killer in U.S. history, nor the most notorious, so using the word "biggest" puzzled me.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, like, he killed maybe 7 people? Even if we doubled or tripled that, he's certainly not the most prolific serial killer in US history (and I wouldn't really call him a serial killer myself, but that's more a matter of semantics and opinion and blah blah blah). That's probably Samuel Little, who killed between 50-90 people, and was only caught in 2012. There's also Gary Ridgway, who killed 50+ people, or good old Ted Bundy and his 35+ body count.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone who has killed 7 people is, by definition, a serial killer, whether you call them that or not.

[(Anonymous)]

Not "America's biggest serial killer."

[(Anonymous)]

?

You said "I wouldn't really call him a serial killer myself" not "I wouldn't call him America's biggest serial killer".

[(Anonymous)]

The anon you're replying to is not the anon who listed serial killers with larger body counts and mused about definitions of 'serial killer'.
I know because I was the first anon, and not the second.
I did not intend to diminish his crimes in any way, nor to suggest that serial killers need a higher body count to qualify as such. It is simply that I think of serial killers as people who are driven specifically to kill by pathology, rather than... whatever was going on with Gosnell. Greed? Maybe?
I mean, is an assassin a serial killer?

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Ah, ok. For some reason I wasn't thinking of it that way. Yeah, I think assassins technically count as serial killers, but don't really fit the stereotype of serial killers that most people think of.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, no. There are criteria other than number of victims that go into determining whether or not someone can be considered a serial killer. Even if you believe murder is the correct classification for his actions, the fact that he was acting in a professional capacity excludes him from being designated as a serial killer.

[(Anonymous)]

[anon that ayrt replied to] Yes, exactly.

[(Anonymous)]

Reading a bit more about this particular case, I feel like it's more of a grey area, maybe more manslaughter than murder, but in general, the only requirement is "the unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events". Even if someone (like the assassin example listed above) might not fit the stereotype that people think of, they're still technically a serial killer according to the FBI.

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder#two

[(Anonymous)]

No, they really aren't. A proposed definition in the summation of a symposium does not constitute an applied definition.

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt - in this case though, if you've ever bothered to research criminal profiling and the different proposed definitions of serial murder, you should know that it is. Other and perhaps more scientific and fact-based typologies, which look at crime scene variables and psychological motivation as classifying factors, rarely use the words "serial murder". Schlesinger used "compulsive murderer", for example. "Serial killer" is and remains a term used by the FBI around the 80s and applied most commonly according to the number of victims.

[(Anonymous)]

anon from above

Yep. Before the definition was basically the same, but with three or more people. Aside from the time period thing, it literally is only about the number of victims, at least for the FBI. Although, like you said, other organizations/groups might use different criteria.