EconBuff Podcast #22 with Harry Hueston
Dr. Harry Hueston talks with me about serial killers. Dr. Hueston walks us through what serial killers are and describes how many serial killers might be out there today. We discuss what motivates serial killers and what drives their behavior. We explore how investigations of serial crimes work, and Dr. Hueston explains what kind of challenges are faced due to the number of missing persons across the country. Dr. Hueston argues advances in investigative techniques, including those with DNA, and nation wide databases, will cause an increase in the number of cold cases getting solved, including many serial killer cases from pervious decades. Finally, Dr. Hueston discusses the history of serial killers, and we explore how Dr. Hueston views the case of Jack the Ripper and books speculating about Jack the Ripper's identity.
Photo by Matt Popovich on Unsplash
Transcript
Stitzel: Hello [and welcome to the] EconBuff Podcast. I'm your host, Lee Stitzel. With me today is Dr. Harry Hueston. Harry is a recently retired professor of criminal justice. Congratulations by the way.
Hueston: Thank you.
Stitzel: He retired as the Chief of Police from The University of Arizona in 2000 after 30 years in law enforcement, serving in various positions in Ohio, California, Arizona, and The U.S. Army military police. He's currently certified as a police officer in Ohio, Arizona, and The U.S. Army. Harry, welcome.
Hueston: Thank you.
Stitzel: So, I'm really excited today. We're going to talk about serial killers. So, I got to start off with a bit of a trigger warning. I've never had to do this on the pod before. So, if you would be bothered by such things, just be aware we're going to talk about serial killers today and all things that attend them. We're going to try to be judicious about how we do it, but we're here to have a good and thorough discussion as well. So, if you're listening and that bothers you, this may not be the episode for you. If you're listening [and] there's small children in the room, maybe send them away. I don't know. So Harry, start us off. What is a serial killer?
Hueston: Well, a serial killer has been defined as a person who kills more than three people over a period of time. That definition is not mine. It's basically how the FBI and some other criminal justice agencies define it. The issue there is, you know, is somebody who goes into a location, and shoots and kills three people on the same day, only in three hours --- is that a serial killer? No. That's a mass shooter.
Stitzel: Mass shooter, right.
Hueston: So, the definition of a serial killer is an individual who is killing people over a period of time. Generally, as you have seen, some of these serial killers have been killing people for decades.
Stitzel: Hmm mmm.
Hueston: And that's part of the issue when you're dealing with this type of a criminal on decades of bodies. And how do you collect evidence? And there's --- so, it's a complex case investigation. And but, they're alive and well, and they're walking around right now in our country.
Stitzel: So, you're starting this off by scaring us already.
Hueston: Ha.
Stitzel: You, kind of, anticipated my follow-up to that [which] was [to] talk about the difference between mass shooters and serial killers. So, I think there's kind of a third category about, like, spree killings. Or I don't know if you categorize…
Hueston: Yeah. That….
Stitzel:…kind of categorize the killer as that.
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel: So, a mass shooter, kind of, evokes this --- there's one time in one instance and then that’s…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:… kind of it, right?
Hueston: Yep.
Stitzel: And there's some fairly high profile…
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel:…cases of that even recently --- Sandy Hook. And then…
Hueston: Sure.
Stitzel:…of course you got Aurora, Colorado and stuff like that. So, in those situations you get a mass killer. They're killing multiple people at one time. It's, kind of, like…
Hueston: Hmm.
Stitzel:…an event.
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel: You've got serial killers. And that evokes this, like, Ted Bundy kind of thing…
Hueston: Yep.
Stitzel:…where people are killing over --- you said decades. I mean…
Hueston: Decades.
Stitzel:…there are some crazy cases like that. And then, you know, a lot of your, like, mysterious type of killings can sometimes (people can) suspect that that's part of, like, an unidentified serial killer...
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel:…which I really want to talk about that…
Hueston: Sure.
Stitzel:…respect in a minute. But talk to us just a little bit about how you would differentiate. Do we have the right feel if we're thinking about that kind of stalkerish, mentally unhealthy person with the serial killer? Or there's maybe some other types maybe?
Hueston: Well, a lot of that boils down to the person that is doing the killing.
Stitzel: Hmm mmm.
Hueston: And this is where you'll find there are going to be a whole diverse rationale as to are we going to target this group and why? Or are we going to do this group and why? And what drives it? And how do they --- some of the questions are how do they live with themselves? And then so in my mind, a serial killer investigation is one of the toughest because the length of time involved, the victim/the victims that are involved, the lack of any type of solid good evidence, and then the fact that it's not in one location. Many serial killers, like I said, are roaming The United States right now. In fact, the estimate (you're gonna go a little crazy with this), but the FBI is estimating between 3,000-5,000.
Stitzel: No. Are you serious? Current active?
Hueston: Yeah. I believe that that's right. And the reason…
Stitzel: O.K., but if you'd asked me: Lee, guess how many? I'd have been, like: I don't know, three or five. And you're saying I'm off by…
Hueston: Many more.
Stitzel: Multiple orders of magnitude.
Hueston: Multiple orders. Multiple locations. Unknown victims. Totally unknown victims. And…
Stitzel: Do you have a sense of, like how many like unsolved murders there are…
Hueston: Well, let me give you an example.
Stitzel:…here or something like that?
Hueston: Let me give you an example. When I was a police chief in Arizona --- every month I received a book that was put out by The Department of Justice. And the purpose of the book was to put it out there to all police departments across the country to see if they could identify was this a missing person in your area? Or this characteristic and stuff like that. And the problem that we had is there were over 200-300 pictures. And that was for one month. So, to give you an idea on the magnitude --- this is one of those crimes we really don't have a good idea, and that's what makes some of these serial killers --- most recently the integration of DNA. And you get a guy like [Samuel] Little or this guy Nick [Nicholas Troy Sheley]. And I will tell you. I am [telling you and] I would say that the use of DNA in bringing out cold cases --- and I'm talking cold cases. I'm talking 20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago where they gathered this evidence. The concept of DNA wasn't really there for the street cop. But now see where we are, and how it's being used. I think you're going to see a resurrection of these cases coming up. And if they have the evidence [and] if they have that DNA, [then] they're going to start. And you're going to see more of these cases. But you look at the age of these individuals that they're getting. They are not 30 or 40. I mean, they're into their late 60s, 70s, 80s. And that's what I think we're going to see in the future.
Stitzel: So, that brings up an aside. I don't want to get derailed, because I do want to come back around to those two numbers you mentioned. But in the case of these people that they're finding that are 60-70 years old they're bringing. You're talking about the killers themselves?
Hueston: Yeah. The killers.
Stitzel: So, they haven't been doing that at that whole time. So, at some point they stop. Like, that's a puzzle to me.
Hueston: And that's a great question. I don't know if I would say they stop. Indications are, you know, people like a Bundy. Well, he got caught.
Stitzel: Right.
Hueston: He didn’t stop. Let's take the zodiac killer for example. They haven't caught this guy. They just broke his code recently, which I find is fascinating, because it wasn't, like, two years ago. It was decades ago. And look who did it --- a bunch of private citizens…
Stitzel: Right.
Hueston:…at a think tank cracked it. Well, but they haven't caught the guy. And so, it's to me this is a new growing field that needs to be researched again. And to say they stop. BTK --- bind, torture, kill. That guy [Dennis] Raider --- I'm here to tell you he missed the fame that he got. And so, there's a lot of that stuff inside that they're so, you know, their names they watch. And they get excited seeing an email over the place. And when that disappears they go through a drought. Then they want to resurrect again. So that's what Raider did. He started throwing/ poking the --- you know, as I call it he started throwing the --- stuff out, and the cops were on it, and got him. So, it --- to say they quit I [mean] some of them do. Some keep right on killing. You know, [Jeffrey] Dahmer kept on killing until he was caught. [John Wayne] Gacy [killer clown] I mean, he kept killing until he was caught. So, it really [depends]. There's no-one-size-fits-all I guess.
Stitzel: So, we've touched on several things. Because I'm going to want to talk about motivation. I'm going to want to talk about investigation. I'm going to want to talk about, you know, [if] should we make these into high-profile cases?
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: Because then that creates, kind of, an indigeneity problem. We're, sort of, feeding the monster.
Hueston: Yep.
Stitzel: That leaves room for copycats. So, there's a bunch of ways we can go. And before we get --- I really don't want to let this thread get away --- [any further], how can it be that there are hundreds of missing people across the country every month? Like, for somebody like me who's living my, like, quiet…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…suburban life it doesn't [make sense why these crimes are not reported, even though I may report] only the smallest piddliest of crimes. You know, I had a car that was parked on the street I forgot to lock. Somebody, like, obviously went through it see if they could get anything in value.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: There's nothing in it so they didn't. It's like --- that's crime. But I understand why that doesn't get reported.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: And I understand why some more heinous things where you have other factors like rape.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: I understand why victims aren't going to come forward. But I'm not ashamed to report that my window was…
Hueston: Sure.
Stitzel:…broken. So, it seems like we'd have a good catalog on that. And then the missing people thing is just, like, really weird to me. How many people are up and moving across the country [and] not telling them when they get registered as a missing person, but they're fine. They're just chasing their dreams to be an actor in L.A. How do you have that volume of missing people? Or could we be talking --- even for example a missing person it could be an accident, right? I could have gone hiking up in the hills and gone missing. But then there are people here that would be like: well, Lee went hiking a week ago [and] he probably should have been back for class this morning, right? So, how do you even? How do you even talk to us as regular citizens, who can't even fathom how…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…there could be that many missing people?
Hueston: Well, everything that you've mentioned you have somebody that has/that cares enough for you to report you missing. What if I told you [that] there's thousands of people they're throw away people? Throw away --- let me define that. These will be prostitutes, runaways, [and] homeless. And that idea that somebody cares about them doesn't exist. And the idea when you look, if you look at the interviews that are done with these serial killers, now what do they do with the bodies. Well, I don't know. I just threw it over the hill. There's a heck of a lot of geography where we may find those bodies. And you know what? We may not. Why? Because animals eat bodies. And so, that's why there's a number of examples over in Albuquerque where the couple's out hiking, and their dog comes back with a bone, and they look and it's a human hand.
Stitzel: Yeah. That sounds like an episode of a crime drama, right?
Hueston: It --- well, all of the crime. Mind hunters and all the rest of these things that are evolving. When you take a look at the interviews or the interrogations that are done on those known serial killers that have either been arrested and executed or awaiting trial or are in prison for life --- you'll find that there's so many they can't remember. And, you know, this guy Little has drawn pictures. He said: well, we had this one. And he has --- he really he is one of the few they think that may have --- killed over a hundred. And it's mind-boggling, yet he is able to at least present himself in remembering. He's created a whole portrait of his victims which is, sort of, mind-boggling to me, because there's not one or two or 15 or 20. He's up to about 100-104. And here's the other thing. There may be more. How do you validate all this? Bundy said he killed hundreds. Well, how do you validate? I mean, where do you go? And does he remember? And again, we're talking about an individual that has no conscience in killing somebody. In fact, has actually enjoys it and looks forward to that. Well, come on. Most of us aren't wired that way. And so, and then the other thing is most of us, you know, we remember things --- particularly important things. The serial killer [version]: big deal, so I killed this one. So what. I dumped that body over there. Nobody's gonna find it. And he is absolutely correct. This is a big country. And so, we are not finding bodies. And like you said it's hard to fathom. But if you have nobody that cares, [then] it's not hard to fathom at all. They call it the throwaway people.
Stitzel: So, we sort of have this idea, you know, about serial killers. I think even, you know, casual people that are thinking about this casually (just conversation that comes up) --- we probably do have some sense that it's often these types of people that are victims.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: And that's why. And so, it's probably especially heinous when we have a serial killer who's not focused on those type of people, [who are] not killing for --- or maybe they get some kind of perverse enjoyment out well obvious all of it's --- perverse enjoyment, [but] out of specifically targeting people who do have connections, right?
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: But then I/my guess [is] those serial killers --- they don't evade being caught quite as long, because that creates a much bigger trail and intensity of desire to find them, right?
Hueston: Right. It's again, that's, you know, for example [John Wayne] Gacy. He killed kids. And what brought the attention to Gacy over a period of time was when he killed his last kid. The cops were on it right there. And the cops said/tied this kid [who] was seen with this last person. And that last person was Gacy and boom. [Jeffrey] Dahmer for example --- the guy escaped. And when the guy escaped from Dahmer, and got the cops, and the cops went up there. Wow. And then they looked, and they started seeing pictures of dismembered bodies. And it just. That was it. He was had right there.
Stitzel: Yeah.
Hueston: And so, sometimes these things occur where this individual has been killing for a long period of time. And one incident takes all that attention that the cops don't have a clue, because there's nobody. You know, [there are] no witnesses, no evidence, no nothing. And all of a sudden it comes, and then all comes together. Sometimes that's the way it works. Other times they'll get away with it forever.
Stitzel: So, I --- that last point is very interesting. But one of the things that you said, I had done (I've done) some reading. And the name is escaping me, but the really famous serial killer --- and somebody that actually attacked people in Toronto --- and I was just struck when I read that story.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: I don't know why the names escaping me. I struck when I read that story how many close calls there were…
Hueston: Oh yeah.
Stitzel:…where literally they're interviewing this person in prison and the person goes: yep, I was here. And it, kind of, in both directions.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: And I was like well, I was going to grab this lady, but she stepped on the train. She got away. And then another time, you know, I had just done this; and a policeman walked by 10 seconds, you know, later…
Hueston: Right. Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…and I was able to hide. You know, and then some of this stuff is just ridiculous, right? They're literally right there in the police's grasp. But what can you expect the policeman to do? He doesn't know…
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel:…that this is the person. And if he showed up 10 seconds earlier…
Hueston: He would have seen.
Stitzel:…he would have seen the harassment. He'd seen him in the act. He'd caught him.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: And that story would have been very different. And it almost would have, you know, prevented all these other number of things. So, and then you said: well, how many of them get [caught]? [It is] obviously really hard to estimate given the type of numbers we've already talked about.
Hueston: Yes.
Stitzel: So, is it safe to say the number that are in the, sort of, our social knowledge here (that the Dahmer’s and the Gacy’s that we know about) represent potentially a very small fraction of total of serial killers?
Hueston: That is a very good question that I wish I could give an…
Stitzel: Of course.
Hueston:…answer that you want. I can't.
Stitzel: Of course.
Hueston: Because when you look at these individuals --- we've caught a lot. But when you look at the victims involved and all that, I can't tell if we keep 10%. Or how about 20%? Maybe we're at 25%. And the answer to that is we don't know.
Stitzel: Yeah. But I'm gonna have trouble sleeping tonight, because I'm guessing the number isn't 99% of them.
Hueston: I --- Lee, no. I don't think we're getting [that percentage]. It's because [of] the numbers of victims, and the way and how we find them. I mean, look at Long Beach --- Long Beach in New York. There's a guy. They've got guys that are dumping bodies out there over decades. They haven’t caught him. They know who he's dumping, but they've/they haven't caught him --- I'm assuming, because most serial killers are white males. They haven't found him. And we're talking decades. They've got --- there's one in Louisiana they haven't caught him. They got one on I-40. They call him the I-40 guy. I mean, you can look at various parts of our country, and there are serial killers out there working. And they/and they're assigned these names by either their location, like this, you know, the Interstate 40 serial killer. Why? Because he targets individuals on I-40. And so, the names come up made up by either media or somebody. And the police are --- they're at the end of the road. And what I mean by that is [that] they're picking up their first kind of a dent [to] try to identify who the heck they're dealing with. And then putting that person's life [together] if they can find who that is. You know, we're here, [so] what happened before that? Now, there's another thing you need to know --- VICAP Violent Criminal Apprehension Program. This is a nationwide program put out by the FBI. And its purpose there is when a police investigator or police officer finds a body [and there is] nothing on it, nothing [at all, then] they can enter the body where it was; [inclusive of] male/female characteristics, ethnicity, and all this stuff. They get an aged cause of death. They enter that into a national database. And that was put together because we find that there was no national database anywhere. And so, that has in some ways contributed to catching some of these people; because they find a body that was killed this way outside of Tucson, Arizona [and] they find a similar body killed that way down in Saint Angelo. Well, they find another body similar to that over at St. Louis. And so, when they see certain patterns --- ethnicity, gender, [or] profession; [whereas] prostitution is really, in my mind, one of the bigger victims in this. And then the methodology of death --- strangulation killing, decapitation, this part missing [or] that part, [the] trophy's taken [or] whatever. Then you/when you get that on a national level and you start looking at that, that's another way that you believe you're dealing with yet another serial killer, because they tend to create in their killing. They kill the same way. They may get/they may stage the bodies. They may take parts of the bodies. But their methodology in killing victims ---- they may be like Bundy. You know, he was looking for white females, with a certain type of hair that was parted in the middle, that reminded him of his girlfriend that broke up with him.
Stitzel: Hmm mmm.
Hueston: And so welcome to, you know, what an individual sees in another person that [propels them to] kill them. That's what serial killers are gonna do.
Stitzel: So, let's talk about the methodology really quickly then. You can, sort of, understand [that] I think motivation of serial killers is, like, a real puzzle to us.
Hueston: Big puzzle.
Stitzel: You know, but we're told these stories as to they're looking for a type. And that type might be a physical type like you mentioned.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: It might be, like you said, an occupation. It might just be the fact that nobody would miss them. There's/there are several things that played there. Why the consistency, seemingly in the way, that they would kidnap or/and then eventually kill their victims?
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: Like, why is somebody --- that I can almost, in an again perverse way, kind of, see why things that we would think as, like --- tied to an emotional thing? If you're, if you have this girlfriend that broke up with you, and then you find a girl that sort of sufficiently fits that body type and then you strangle them, like, [then] you get/you can see the thread that's going…
Hueston: Hmm.
Stitzel:…through that person's mind. But other things like trophies, or strangulation, or (not strangulation but like you said) decapitation ---- like, what's happening there? Is the killer discovering that that's an effective way to do it? And so, why experiment with these kinds of things when you found something that gets the job done? Is that something that is directly a part of what is the thrill to them? Like, if I/when I remember reading a story about what? I think an axe murderer in Louisiana.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: Right?
Stitzel: But maybe if that guy goes and stabs someone with a knife it doesn't do anything for him.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: He's not going to enjoy shooting someone, right? It's got to be this, sort of, particular --- and some of those things are really visceral, and so you can understand…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: If you're that kind of demented person why that would be a ---- certain payoff.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: And other ones don't, that don't seem to be that kind of thing. Can you speak briefly to just, sort of, the methodology maybe of kidnapping as well…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…but the killing [in particular]?
Hueston: Yeah. Well, you got to understand [that] serial killers are going to evolve. Their first kill --- there's a rush. And they've continually talked about a rush that they get, and then the power in their hands when they're strangling somebody. That's what Little did. But the idea that they're gonna --- their first kill is going to --- set some patterns in the place. And what I mean by that is who and whatever and how it is done --- that's going to set their comfortable. And they get more comfortable as they expand their victims. And so, if we look at the serial killers like Bundy, [he] would use a ruse. He would [use]: my hand is broken, come and help me here. And that was [how] he would get the victims. He used a sympathy ploy. A lot of them, you know, simply get a --- and I will say another, again a --- prostitute, and under the guise that they're going to make money for some sexual act. And they get in the car, and they get isolated, and then they're killed.
Stitzel: Uh huh.
Hueston: And so, a lot of that is going to be based upon what that individual serial killer feels most comfortable in taking that life. But once that first one's initiated --- that's it. They're going. And they don't --- they will use the same basic methodology. They may expand it as they become more proficient. Some of them will take their victims and not kill them right away. They'll rape them. They'll beat them. And they'll do this repeatedly over months and then finally kill them. It's with those areas. There's no --- the only consistent thing there is the death. The rest of the stuff is predicated upon the preference of the serial killer, and that the death is the only consistent thing. Anything else, I mean --- cannibalism that's what Dahmer would do. And some of these guys are bizarre in what they try to think they can do --- create zombies or stuff like that. So, that's again. That's what makes it so hard to investigate and catch. And it's a pretty complex crime, that the only consistent thing there is somebody's dead. How they died, or how it was done, and was it done quickly or was it over a period of time --- flip a coin right there.
Stitzel: So, the other consistency often is geography. So, I've read some of these stories as well where/when a killer has a close call, [then] they might switch geographies. And those are often the ones that manage to evade us…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…of being…
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel:…captured for a long time.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: So, the ones that have a more a smaller geographic region are more likely to stay in that [region, but] seem to be more likely to be caught. Would you comment, sort of, briefly on their choice of geography, and then, you know, how committed…
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel:..they might be to that geography?
Hueston: Yeah. Well, let's take a look. Let's take a look at this guy Gary Ridgeway, [the] Green River Killer. [He was] alive and well when I was a chief, and that was name given to him because that's where victims were found. But if you look in the study of Ridgeway, he basically said every place where he buried a body is where he and one of his wives had gone out and had sex and he felt comfortable there --- and so the river, or the Green River. Well, O.K., so he buried a number of them. Just left them there. Didn't necessarily bury him other places. When he was eventually caught, the women that were married to him were interviewed by the cops and said: yeah, we camped there and had we had sex there. So, he buried a number of bodies there. And so, it's bizarre how the rationale of the site. But obviously if --- let's take this Long Island serial killer. Now he's up to I think 14 or 15 or 20. Well, there's something about that site that's isolated enough that he feels he can take a body, bury it, and get away. That's --- he's comfortable. And you're right. They will stay in a comfortable area until they feel: well, wait a second. The cops don't know, but I gotta find another place. And they'll go find another place. And so, it's tough. It's a very complex crime to wrap around and get. And because of the geography, we have cars. And so [there is] the mobility issue of sneaking a body, put in a car, driving 300 miles, [and] dumping it someplace. And in some of these cases it's, you know, how did you come up with this place? Well, I was just driving by. It was isolated. Just did it. I mean, there's no consciousness about it. It's there. Boom. Throw the body out there. Let the body roll down the bottom of a mountain or a cliff or something. And who's going to find it? Well, chances are it's not going to be found. It's going to be eaten. And so, another complexity to the whole thing.
Stitzel: Well so, we, sort of, have --- we've discussed this idea of, you know, isolated. And we're thinking --- you said Tucson, right? We're thinking about deserts. Or we're thinking about cliffside…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…or thinking about mountains. I have to imagine that there's just an enormity of bodies that are never going to be found that are related to waterways, right? Like, I mean this is even one of the things that's, kind of, like the mafia story, right? Like, how many people are in the East River, you know?
Hueston: [Laughs]
Stitzel: And serial…
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel:…killers have to be thinking about that kind of thing too. And, you know, the type of animals and vultures or whatever…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…they're going to eat bodies into, you know, to probably outnumber 10 to 1 by things that'll eat you in the water in that sort of scenario. Do any --- I don't know of any cases off the top of my head. That's what I'm speculating here, but are there some instances of that?
Hueston: Well, there's --- you mentioned geography. What about the bodies that are eaten? I mean, you had a guy in Texas that was feeding his victims to the pigs.
Stitzel: Right.
Hueston: And it's one of these things Lee that I really don't know if we're gonna find a good answer to. It's some of these are just the opportunity. There's a -- there's an isolated area. Dump it and go. Some of these are a familiar dumping ground and then they change. And sometimes, you know, the serial killer wants the body to be found, so that that'll hype up their self and their self-esteem; because, you know, they found this individual who was posed this way. And again, that's the mindset of the serial killer. It's just --- this is what makes it so tough.
Stitzel: So it's good that we circled back around to that. That's another topic that I was wanting to, sort of, cover. How do you approach that from the mindset of, you know, this is something people are interested in?
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: I mean, go look at your Netflix account. There's a bunch of…
Hueston: Sure.
Stitzel:…serial killer documentaries on there, and it fascinates us. And just, you know, 99.99% of us are --- like, we just can't even fathom that.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: We can't fathom killing someone, let alone going on a serial killer spree. How do you balance that with more high profile [cases]? [This] probably does raise the kind of awareness that's going to help the police actually be able to catch somebody in this case, versus you're also potentially feeding someone's ego and actually providing motivation to do…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: that. [And that] is sort of akin to the, you know, we don't negotiate with terrorists’ kind of thing…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…because you don't encourage that kind of behavior. But what are your thoughts on that? Is there a better way to go about it? Or just, kind of, it is what it is?
Hueston: Well again, when you look at this from an investigative standpoint, I have (I think in my career I may have) had to deal with one in the 30 years that I was involved in law enforcement. But when you look at how law enforcement [deals], they're going to deal with one minute part of a very long and complex puzzle. That one-minute part may be [that] they found a victim. And they found this victim in this condition, at this location. And they're going to do everything they can to collect all the evidence they possibly can. And then hopefully they'll be able to get some sort of an identification on that victim. And then if that identification leads to somebody that's in the area, then that's their starting point. But like I told you before, that might not even exist. You don't have flesh. You have a bone that appears to be from an individual of this gender and this ethnicity and this age. So, you have a dead body, but the only thing left is, let's say, your femur or an ankle bone. And so, think about the frustration the cops are going to have with that. That body they found for example may have been dumped there for years. The body can decompose and quite rapidly, but within 6-9 months, you --- that's it. I mean, if it's outside, [then] the animals are gonna eat it scattered all over the place. And you maybe lucky to find a skull. But between the animals and the insects, nothing much left other than the bones.
Stitzel: Yeah.
Hueston: And so, there's a huge level of frustration involved with that. And so, like I mentioned that VICAP, you know --- they put what they got into that. And you're one step closer to the next million steps that you have to take in identifying ---- you've got a serial killer, but you've got a million steps between that and an “id” on --- a particular person. So, it's very frustrating, very tough, [and] very complex. And imagine, you know, let's say, let's take an example --- a little Canyon, Texas. Canyon, Texas --- if one of their police officers was out someplace --- and do we have remote locations? And the answer is yeah. Excuse me. So, if you go out there and they find a part of a body, well what's going to happen? Exactly what I just explained to you. [We] know [the] bone identity. The bone appears to be from a female, appears to be Caucasian, [and] appears to be between the ages of 25-38 or 40. O.K., and the doctor and the anthropologist --- they can tell you all that stuff. Oh well, what do you got from there? Welcome to serial killers.
Stitzel: Yeah.
Hueston: And they're investigating that.
Stitzel: Now you go look at the giant book of missing people over the last 10 years and…
Hueston: Sure.
Stitzel:…beat your head against the wall for hours who knows.
Hueston: That’s it.
Stitzel: So, let's just kind of a passing thought that you had said, because we've mentioned just several places. And are there trends in the type of places or geography that we see serial killers? My intuition is they're somewhat well spread out. They're just as likely to happen anywhere as anywhere else. Or are we likely to see them in big cities, or in colder climates, or in, you know, rural areas? What do you [think]? What do you [think]?
Hueston: I think they're spread out. And I don't think [they are centralized]. They can be anywhere at any time. And like I said, there is the media [who] will create a name. The Green River Killer won for the bodies. The I-40 Killer won I-40. And so, depending upon the geography or the geographical location of where a number of bodies are from. The Long Island serial killer. Be anywhere, any place, [or] anytime.
Stitzel: The other thing that you mentioned earlier was [that] you tend to see a high disproportion of white male serial killers.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: It's a pretty well-known fact, but it crossed my mind when you said that. We're obviously, you know, telling an American-centric story, or especially a European and American-centric story. Do we see serial killers in general and, sort of, you know, the non-Europe…
Hueston: Yep.
Stitzel:…non-United States area.
Hueston: Oh yeah.
Stitzel: And in those cases, what are the characteristics of those killers?
Hueston: Well, I will tell you that serial killers come on both genders.
Stitzel: That's news to some people, right?
Hueston: Sir?
Stitzel: That's news to some people, right?
Hueston: Yeah. I mean, women. There's some serious serial killers that women did over in Europe.
Stitzel: Is that right?
Hueston: Oh yeah.
Stitzel: I was not really. I mean, I couldn't even think of the name of any particular female serial killer.
Hueston: Well, there's been a couple sisters that were actually --- I think it was the Wombo sisters. I could be wrong in the pronunciation of that. But serial killers are [and] can be found in basically any ethnic group, any gender, [and] in any age. There are serial killers in Russia. A serial killer that claimed to kill over 145. It was associated with the game of chess. Serial killer down in South America. He would kill little girls. He was in Peru, and then they put him in jail. He got out, [and] went to Bolivia. They put him in jail [and] he got out. And so, ethnicity, gender, [or] age --- any one of those. You can do research on serial killers. They're all there.
Stitzel: That's just something unbelievable to me. So, I want to talk about the investigative techniques. You've done a good job talking about databases and DNA and different things, and how that might ought to progress. But I did want to circle back around to --- you mentioned private individuals cracking the Zodiac code. Are you familiar with the Netflix documentary don't [Mess] with Cats? So, there's a there's a story of a guy --- he puts up a video. I've said he couldn't have been YouTube but some sort of streaming service.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: And he's literally --- he's killed two cats, and he's put him in a bag, and he throws them in the dumpster. And it's, like, that's more or less I think the entirety. And it creates a group of people who are very upset…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…by this.
Hueston: Sure.
Stitzel: And they start to, like --- they form a group, and they start to investigate, and that kind of eggs this killer on.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: And so now, there are more explicit videos where he's supposedly feeding one to an anaconda, and then he's playing with a cat, and then later on he's got a picture of him…
Hueston: Sure.
Stitzel:…disposing of the cat, and so on. And this then escalates into a case ---- where I can't remember if the serial killer in this case is gay, or is just attracting gay prostitutes, or [just attracting] gay people…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…and then ending up killing them. And so, the story though is all these people that are investigating ---- we saw him in this time, and, you know, we see this picture in the background of that, and going through and in some ways those like private groups --- probably have time and resources that a police department…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…is just not going to have. I can't fixate on this one video of an individual…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: And be, like, O.K. that dumpster looks like the type of dumpsters that go behind McDonald's.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: You just can't. You/I guess you could. But it seems unlikely that you could actually do that. Do you see that being --- is that a one-off story that I'm seeing because it made for good drama on Netflix? Or are we actually seeing individuals involved in these kinds of serial crimes investigation?
Hueston: Well, I think a lot of that is social media, and [that] generates this. And somebody takes this idea, which I think is deplorable, and makes a movie out of that. Well, welcome to our country today. And by the way, it's not only in our country. I think it's worldwide, because there's enough of these things out there that you can find. Now, one of the things you said with once cats, dogs, [and] those kind of things --- the killing of that --- well that's very offensive on the dog person. That would get me upset, and there are laws against that. And, you know, if the police felt that that was a priority that they could look at, [then] they'd pull it up and they would investigate. Police are solving hundreds of crimes right now because of social media. But I think the idea when you start killing a person on social media, cops are going to be all over that. And the cops are doing that by the way right now in solving a new a number of crimes particularly if there's an indication that a person has been killed. It's like rape. We've had numerous incidences where some of our students, in a variety of colleges or high schools across our country, will give a female a drug that totally knocks her out, and then proceed to gang rape her, and take pictures of it. Well, I can tell you right now --- those pictures and the cops are going to be on that, and they will catch those individuals. Classic example is look at the riot the riot in Washington D.C. Look at the extensive use of social media by the FBI and the results. O.K. Then welcome to the reality of social media today in investigations. I'm here to tell you --- if you put it on the air and it's a crime, [then] you're gonna get caught. And you're just seeing that unfold right now.
Stitzel: Just as, sort of, an aside, you know, you do. We're sort of ultimately fascinated with serial killers. But you're gonna have other types of serial crime. You mentioned rape.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: I think they're being serial rapists…
Hueston: Right. Absolutely.
Stitzel:…in a way that are targeting people and a part of that, you know, and then they're, sort of, relying on some of those things. We talked about, like, there's a dramatic under-reporting of rape because it…
Hueston: Absolutely.
Stitzel:…carries other connotations that the victim doesn't want to deal with.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: You know, I think we can all sympathize with that. But those, sort of, share investigative similarities I would say…
Hueston: Yes.
Stitzel:…except that there's no body at the end.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: Right.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: Because you get the serial killer --- as unlikely as it is in…
Hueston: Hmm.
Stitzel:…some cases --- if they want the body to not be found that it's not.
Hueston: Absolutely correct. And again, many of the serial killers use rape as part of that process. And some of them actually go back to a body that has been dead for a number of days and have sex with dead bodies. And that's the mind set. That is evidence.
Stitzel: That's part of the Bundy case.
Hueston: Bundy did that, but again Bundy was one, but Ridgeway was another. I mean, when you start digging around, [and] you start researching these individuals, it's pretty ghastly what they did.
Stitzel: So, how much of the type of stories that we are familiar with end up being the story part [that is] built on testimony from these people? And how much of that is unsubstantiated that you think is probably fanciful, so we sort of build up this myth around these characters? You say what? They obviously did bad things, and they probably really are serial killers.
Hueston: Hmm.
Stitzel: There’re bodies that we found that we match them to that and so on, you know. But you hear these cases where somebody will claim, you know, they killed two people that they claim 20 bodies.
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel: That kind of thing. And so there…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…there's a perverse rationality there. Right, which is if you're going down for two murders why not make yourself into the legend that's going to have stories told about you…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…and have 20 murders.
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel: How much of that do you think is probably something we ought to at least take with a grain of salt?
Hueston: Well, the police don't take it with a grain of salt. I mean, if somebody comes up and claims they've killed so many, [then] the police have a responsibility to the families of these victims to validate that. And so you will see in countless examples of the police interviewing and then taking these serial killers. O.K. you killed somebody. Here, show me where. And by golly, that's how they validate it. They find the body. They find the grave. They validate this.
Stitzel: So, what happens when somebody goes to tell you that story, and they take you to a place and the story ends up wrong?
Hueston: Well, that's happened too because they've killed so many. It wasn't this place. It was over there. And so, that's part of the problem when you get individuals that are killing multiple people, and they can't remember because it was 20 years ago. Welcome to a serial killer. And so…
Stitzel: Well then, that's --- there's a big part of just human memory there. You and I have done this kind of thing. And we're like well so, you know, I was passing this stop sign, and then a block later is the McDonald's. And there's no McDonald's there…
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel:…because your mind doesn't remember put those kinds of…
Hueston: That’s right.
Stitzel:…details together. So that…
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel:…doesn't really surprise me at all.
Hueston: Right.
Stitzel: And it's in. And but the police do take incredible months of time to validate the number of deaths that this individual has done. And many times, they'll go out. And it's, like, you know, Bundy claimed he did over 50 or 100. I don't know. And they weren't able to validate up to 30 maybe. Well, but does that mean? You know, he wasn't sure. He was in five different states. And we just gave the example. Well, I thought the McDonald's was at this. Welcome to the human mind. So…
Stitzel: So, in regard to in investigative techniques and databases --- sort of, this expansion of ways that information like social media could be available to your information like DNA? Is your expectation that? Just assume for a moment, and you can tell me [if] this is a bad assumption; [whereas] that, sort of, the number and the rate of serial killers is relatively stable, you know, sort of, in this industrial era. You’d expect that you're going to see a higher proportion of these people caught [and] stopped earlier? That kind of thing? Or is that there's probably trade-offs there, I guess is what I'm thinking about?
Hueston: Well again, we have made incredible leaps in police investigations in using this kind of scientific technology. And I believe we're going to get more. The problem is that as we make these advances, these individuals know about it. And so, the idea (well I'm not gonna, you know) [of] can I eradicate DNA on a victim? Sure, you can. O.K., so what's that gonna do? It's gonna make the police job extremely harder. So, I don't know if we're gonna find that there's going to be a substantial increase in the arrests of serial killers. Frankly, I think no, it won't. I think it's going to remain the same, and the serial killers are going to recognize this, and they're going to do everything they can to get rid of any kind of accommodating evidence on that person's body. But what will happen, I believe, is that you will see these cold cases where clothing has been found, where they keep all this in a freezer, and they resurrect it 30 years later. And they're able to find some type of biological evidence that leads to DNA. And then boom away you go. I think you'll see in many major police departments --- I mean, Amarillo's doing this right now --- cold cases is what they call it. And cold case investigation is coming under a new scrutiny, because of the availability of this new technology is taking crimes that we didn't have that. But we may have a shot at evidence that may drive technology to at least locate the ancestry of this DNA and then away you go. I think you're going to see that coming very strong in the next three to five years. And the other reason is because the processing of DNA is getting less and less expensive. And so, as you look at those kinds of things, the probability that the use of DNA in solving many of these cold cases is going to come to reality. And so, you may see people who --- you may see arrests, but I don't think that's going to have anything to do with our current state of affairs.
Stitzel: We've, kind of, up to this point not really talked about --- we talked a little bit about --- the motivation. But just, kind of, take for granted there's something broken about serial killers. By definition you have to get to somewhere abnormal to engage in that kind of behavior. Do you think they're societal causes to that? Or the other type of, you know, an isolation? Or feeling, like, if you don't have people around you? Or, you know, having --- one of the common stories (we've touched on this a little bit, right) is somebody who has an interaction where they harmed an animal early on, and that gave them some of that rush, and then over time they had to kind of graduate to that? But do you see things in society that would make you think we might have a chance to reduce the number of these things? Or things that that we might worry would cause more serial killers? Or is that just kind of genetically aberrational in terms of cost?
Hueston: Well, that is the $58 billion dollar question my friend, right?
Stitzel: [Laughs]
Hueston: Because right now between psychologists they're looking at every, you know, the idea of bedwetting, or arson playing with matches, killing animals, [and] all this stuff. That's one theory. Another theory is that severe abuse as a baby in a child. And that abuse is physically, sexually, and emotionally. There's another theory out there that most of the serial killers that we discussed had serious head trauma as a young child. A gentleman [was] doing research over in New Mexico, that was taking brain scans of serial killers, and comparing them to individuals of the same age, gender, and ethnicity to see to see the differences. So, I will say get your dice out, roll them on the table, and take your pick. There's a lot of people claiming they have the solution as to what makes a serial killer. We're back to a bunch of factors. And to say this one is going to do it all the time --- I would say that that's not good. Because [when] you actually do the history and you research these individuals, and you trace back every one of these individuals, [who] has, you know, a particular thing that may fit into this category or it may not. And so, if you're a psychologist you're: oh, it's going to fit. I knew couldn't fit here because you got this. And if you're over here it's the head trauma. No head trauma. It's because Bomb was a prostitute and did all these bad things to this kid when they were three [or] four. I mean, roll the dice.
Stitzel: So, some of the cases of serial killers you look at the life that they lived up to that point. And there's just no reason, like, there is no abuse. You can understand the abuse. You can understand the head injury. And yet, either you have some, like, really white-colored people living great lives that end up in that. So, there's obviously got to be a lot of causes that need to be considered.
Hueston: Yes.
Stitzel: And probably none of them are going to be the singular cause I think.
Hueston: Yeah.
Stitzel: That's a good point, you know, always to be made. We make this a lot in economics, but, you know, it's true also in psychology; [whereas that it] is you really are better off not underestimating the complexity of the kind of systems that you're dealing with (for the same reasons that economists are saying: don't think that you can mess with an economy and get the outcomes you want because the economies are very, very complex). It's the same with the human mind. You don't think that you're going to turn the style, and push that button, and cause human behavior, right? So, we're coming up on an hour now. And I, kind of, had one last topic that I'd like you to weigh in on which is, sort of, the history of serial killers. If we think about serial killers, the first name that comes to mind is probably Jack the Ripper…
Hueston: Hmm mmm.
Stitzel:…which we --- one of the only serial killers I think of fame that we --- haven't talked about today. So, kind of, give us some sense of (and take this where you want to go with it) whether it's the investigative or whether it's the way the media handles it. You give a sense of some of those cases that are happening before the Ted Bundy’s injection comment.
Hueston: Sure. Yeah. And thank you for mentioning Jack. I have --- my students and I have investigated Jack for over a decade. I will tell you what I tell my students. There's an author. Her name is Patricia Cornwell. She wrote a book: Jack the Ripper Case Closed Portrait of a Killer [2002]. That book has been reviewed, indicted, [and] blasted all over the place. Here's the key to that book, and you can get it for $2.00, that gives the reader a very good outline on how to apply forensic science to a murder mystery that started in 1888 and still continues today. And that book shows the extent that this woman [went through as] she invested $6 million dollars of her own money. She (Cornwell) actually worked in a medical examiner's office in Richmond, Virginia, and she would type out the results of autopsies. She did over 4,000. This woman knows what she is talking about when it comes to the human body, when it comes to investigations, and that's what I say. And so, reading that book will give the reader an idea of applying forensic science (which at that time she wrote that book in 2001-2002 forensic science has made huge progress since then). So, but, I gotta hand it to her. She is one of the only authors who have written about Jack the Ripper. And literally there are hundreds, if not thousands. They call them Rippy, Rip, Ripperologists in hundreds of thousands of books. But I'm telling you --- she has taken that step by step by step by step by step. And as a police former police chief and a performer police investigator, she's really dissected it. And I would encourage our readers/our listeners to get that book and read it. Now did she prove who Jack the Ripper is? $58 gazillion question. What I feel she did is, [is that] she has provided enough circumstantial evidence to identify one individual [named] Walter Sickert, who she's identified as Jack the Ripper. Very interesting things about that claim, because Walter Sickert was considered a very famous English painter with Whistler. In fact, he worked with Whistler. Interesting things when you look at that. The thing that interests me --- this individual, very famous author --- [is that] she made this claim in 2001. Her idea is: well, if I'm wrong, [then] they're going to sue me. They haven't sued her yet. Very interesting. Here's another interesting thing about that. Walter Sickert, I believe, was a very smart person. He had multiple things that he did to augment his painting. He was an actor. He married into some very rich family so he could live off that. Married three times. You can't find his body because it was cremated. Well, can you find DNA over 100 years? What? There's some speculation you could. In fact, one of the victims Marietta supposedly had a scarf that was worn when she was killed. And so, one of the --- there's a whole other investigative case going on is that, you know, how do you validate that was actually (it was) passed on from family to families? Well, you got a lot of problems there. But supposedly there was some DNA on that. And so, that DNA came up and they tried to look at that. And they said: no, I didn't identify this and identify that. Total let’s throw the dice again. But the important thing about Jack the Ripper --- and you/we've mentioned this all through the thing --- [is] there's sort of a (how can I say it), sort of, a mystery and a fascination with serial killers. Jack the Ripper has been out there. There's been countless movies [and] countless things done on that. It's one of those topics that piques the interest of the human mind. And as he's won, serial killers are going to do exactly the same thing I feel. And that's why we're having a discussion on serial killers. That's where we are.
Stitzel: My guest today has been Harry Hueston. Harry, thank you for joining us on the EconBuff.
Hueston: Listen. We'll do it again. Thank you very much.
Stitzel: Thank you for listening to this episode of the EconBuff. You can find all previous episodes on YouTube at EconBuff Podcast. You can check out our website at econbuffpodcast.wixsite.com. You can contact us at econbuffpodcast@yahoo.com
Opmerkingen