Yeah sorry, meant serial killer. I feel stupid for such a blatant mistake :/ You could always blame serial killings on negligence, abuse, and stuff like that, but if the connection is based on, for example, family members, soon there will be no one left to kill. I don't really get the idea that a female serial killer "has to" work with a male. Can someone explain that concept to me please? Thanks for all your input.
I don't think anyone suggested a female serial-killer 'has' to work with a male at all. It's your story, it's up to you if she has an accomplice or not but although the police look for similarities or connections I doubt there's anything concrete in these terrible crimes. I doubt they have a rule book but jazz is much more of an authoritative on the subject.
Do you want your serial killer to have selfish or selfless motivations? By that I mean: does he or she assume they are doing good or killing for their own gain?
[MENTION=45548]Selbbin[/MENTION]: Milat is a typical aggressive, violent, narcissistic, sexually motivated, impotent killer. Anyone who stabs young men and women multiple times, is substituting for penile penetration. It's very common for serial killers to be impotent. However, they'll typically deny it until they die, so often, these motives are extrapolated (from observation and interviews) and not a part of a confession. But stabbing tells its own story, speaking from the forensic psych point of view. Inclusion of men in his pattern may have been part of his escalation, which is also often seen in serial killers. [MENTION=37558]pessim321[/MENTION]: Female sk don't have to work with men, but if murders involve sexual motives, stabbing, strangulation, mutilation, sexual torture, then if a woman is involved, she'd need a man to fantasise and carry that out. Lone female sk most often prey on vulnerable victims, like elderly or children, motives are usually covered in layers of denial about "helping them", or motive is money or revenge. Getting off on it sexually, is not because women just don't get aroused by hurting someone, which tends to be seen in men only (and only very disturbed men). Women serial killers also can be involved in assassin-type killings and group cause killings (eg. the Manson Family) or join up with their kidnapper as a part of Stockholm Syndrome (eg. Patty Hearst), each having a separate psychopathology from a classic signature serial killer. Ultimately, you can choose to dream all this up, and pay no attention to the realities. But with so many crime novels around, written by ex doctors, lawyers, police officers, you might find that your novel doesn't stand up to their plotting, motivations and characterisations.
[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION] Are these just interpretations or actual theories? I get the logic behind that, but it's a knife. A weapon. In most cases stabbing is a more efficient way of killing someone. (edit: stabbing with a knife as opposed to slashing etc.) Everything can be twisted into a phallic symbol. I'm not doubting your facts, I'm doubting your wooden approach to seeing things as statistics and generalities without considering the variables. What about the killers who were never caught? What about mob hitmen? Wouldn't they be considered serial killers? What about the Zodiac killings in which victims were shot rather than stabbed? Or is a gun also considered to be an extension of a killer's penis?
[MENTION=53150]sanco[/MENTION]: These are well recognised theories. I also mentioned assassins and various different types of serial killers as I emphasised that I was talking only about signature killers, which most people think about when the words "serial killer" are mentioned. I'm sorry if my approach sounds wooden, it's just a professional approach. Trying to dismiss well-recognised and documented facts just because there might be somebody who wasn't caught, is the same as claiming HIV statistics and approach to prognosis, incidence, nature of the disease, aren't right because who knows how many people contracted hiv and cleared it without ever knowing about it. Anything is possible, however, if the evidence that is available doesn't support the assumption, you can't just factor it in and expect it to be as relevant as facts that can be validated. But with thorough understanding of what things are like in real life, a writer can make his dramatised idea work. No matter how outlandish the idea is. The problem with discussing any profession or a theme of study, on the internet forum, is that nobody has any authority because we are all anonymous. Also, any field has camps, who support different approaches and theories, so no matter what I say, you can find on the internet something that contradicts it. In practice this is not a problem, because the motivations of serial killers are academic interests. They don't actually have so much relevance in day-to-day dealing with those people. It's only important because it may help catching future ones, or even preventing it. All I can do as a member of a writers forum is give as much information about something I know about. But I can't give the basic knowledge to anyone, and sometimes basics are essential for understanding. For example, to someone who studied psychology, and development, and forensic psychiatry, stabbing as indicative of what I said above, is perfectly obvious. To someone who isn't familiar with basics, it might sound like bs. The best I can do is recommend a textbook, choose any on forensic psych, and read up on all of this yourself. Also, there are many true crime novels, written by profilers, which are good, but techniques might have been misguided if they are very out of date.
I think discussing what one can and can't do on an Internet forum instead of writing is masturbatory. It's obvious a writer has the freedom to write about anything. If he focuses exclusively on dark and disturbing things, maybe it's because he has anger issues and is bitter, and prefers all kinds of violent things to positive things, but it's his prerogative to be any way that he chooses, as long as he doesn't actually break any state or local laws.
[MENTION=55402]luciamarin[/MENTION]: do you consider all research "masturbatory" or only those bits obtained on the forum? And why?
Well said, [MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION]. Re-reading my post, I may have sounded a little unreasonable. Forgive me, I was heavily stoned.
[MENTION=53150]sanco[/MENTION]: haha, then you are forgiven But seriously, no offence was taken at all, your comment was perfectly reasonable.
...this is probably a bit late for OP, but if anyone else is interested... Put it this way: crimes and drastic actions in general are generally, if not always, motivated by one of three things: money, fear or passion (be it sexual, romantic, revenge...). Knowing your murderer and his background, you can start by choosing which of these is the likeliest and you can then start constructing a backstory around it.
