By S.L. Weiss
When you think of the term serial killer, Gacy, Bundy, and Dahmer are all names that immediately come to mind. A socio or psychopath who murders multiple people without any regard for consequences; a sick, twisted person lacking empathy, among several other thoughts. However, what actually makes a person a serial killer?
The FBI does not refer to serial killers as such anymore; instead, they call them serial murderers. Their definition of a serial murderer is the most mundane description you have ever read.
“A series of homicides that are committed by the same offender or a group of offenders over a period of time, with a common goal or motive. “ (Morton, p. 8)
In the most simplistic terms, anyone who kills more than two people over more than one day would be considered a serial murderer (or serial killer as we commonly refer to them and as I will refer to them in this article). Now, the FBI goes into a little more detail in their 2010 publication Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators, which is an interesting read; however, I will not include that here.
You, like myself, indeed watch every fiction television show involving crime and killers, so we all know what the typical explanation of a serial killer is: someone who kills three or more victims at different times, lacks empathy, typically has a hard time forming relationships, has been abused in some way (mental, physical, emotional) by family members, likely harms or has harmed animals and a possible bedwetter as a youth. If you’ve ever read a John Douglas book, and I highly suggest that you do, you will get a really in-depth view of what makes a serial killer. BUT… if we take the FBI’s definition alone, we get a whole lot more people classified as serial killers.
If you were to search “List of Serial Killers in the United States,” you would come up with a Wikipedia page with a long list of serial killers, past and present, their crimes, how many people they killed, and if they are dead or alive. This is where I got tripped up when I started writing to early serial killers in 2023.
I took this list and looked at the crimes briefly to decide who I wanted to write to, then found their location and the best way to correspond with them. I started sending both emails (yes, you can now email people in prison) and snail mail to these men. In all, I sent out just over 100 letters/emails.
As the letters came back to me, I realized that not all these people were actually serial killers. Some may think I am crazy for writing serial killers or prisoners in general, but I am fascinated by the psychology of it all. 2007 was the first time I wrote to serial killers; I heard back from Keith Jesperson, who wanted money for art supplies and for me to buy his art, so that was a bust. Dorthea Puente wasn’t interested. One was going blind and couldn’t write anymore, and a couple said they were innocent. And then there was Arthur Shawcross.
For those unaware of Arthur or Arty, as I referred to him, let me give you a brief bio. Also known as the Genesee River Killer, he was best known for killing prostitutes in upstate New York. He was caught due to the fact that he was found revisiting one of the crime scenes, ironically enough, taking a pee while a helicopter passed overhead; just below was one of his victims.
Arty was super sly, friendly, personable, and manipulative. My husband and I actually really liked him. It was odd to say out loud, but we looked forward to his letters. He would divulge a little about his crimes in each letter and tell us about his day-to-day activities. When he passed away, we were both distraught as we had only been able to write to him for a year and had planned a trip to visit him. It wasn’t until 2022 that I decided to continue writing serial killers. This time, I was a little disappointed by the responses.
Almost every single person “bored” me. Meaning they weren’t that charismatic psychopath trying to manipulate me slyly (everything I was ready to look out for). They honestly seemed like regular people who had committed a couple of murders. I spoke with one guy who said he killed the men he killed because he was a pimp, and they were johns who were disrespecting his girls or owed money. Another killed people who stole drugs from him or scammed him in his drug business, but he was labeled a serial killer. Another was high and committed all his crimes in the act of burglary. That doesn’t sound like the typical serial killer personality. The killings themselves, of course, are wrong, but not done for the reasoning I was looking for. I wanted to delve into the depths of the serial killer psyche.
And a couple were definitely “not all there,” if you catch my drift. One said they had conversations with me they never had; another said he did research on me and discovered I was working with law enforcement (which I was not), and another didn’t believe I was not a woman and said even if I showed him on video chat or a phone call, he still wouldn’t believe me. Some wanted money for their commissary, but most were happy with a return stamp to respond back to an email.
I did have to block one guy because he was completely psychotic and probably delusional. That was amusing at first but annoying by the end. Every email was signed differently, with different names. His letters would be super articulate one and the next, rambling and barely understandable. After I blocked him, he passed my number out throughout the prison, and I started to receive calls from prisoners, thinking I was looking for love in prison. I found it hilarious every time one would call, and I’d say, “Did you get my number from X?”
So, out of the twenty or more responses I got, only a few guys came off as actual serial killers, and those that did, I wouldn’t be able to write to. The person who asked me for sexual pictures of me as a child and the sex I currently liked but didn’t seem interested in my questions was not someone I was going to continue to write. I wouldn’t give in to that type of talk; it would be strictly professional.
Most of the guys I wrote to had committed their crimes in the 1980s, so I thought I would get some men who were now in their 70s and be open to talking about everything; what else did they have to lose, but that didn’t seem to be the case. A few told me they were “sick puppies” at the time of the crimes and were “regretful” of what they had done. Again, it doesn’t sound like a serial killer’s personality.
Here I am wondering, what actually makes a serial killer a serial killer? Is our understanding that they are completely psychotic wrong? Or should we create a more specified definition of serial killers to weed out those who killed for non-psychopathic reasons? Do we use the vague definition the FBI came up with for a serial killer, which now seems to encompass anyone who kills multiple people? Or do we go with what we believe it is, which makes the term serial killer mean more, making it unique (as weird as that may sound)? Does that sound bizarre? That the term serial killer should “mean something?” To set it apart from every other crime. We are all fascinated by these famous killers, what made them do what they did, and how they got away with it for so long; lumping any killer into that mix isn’t as interesting. But… then again, maybe those I have corresponded with are actually serial killers and have just become good at hiding their true selves.
So, after all this, I am tempted to start weeding out all the alleged serial killers on the list to those that fit my definition of one. Apparently, and thankfully, the John Wayne Gacy’s of the world do not come around that often.
Editor's note: this piece ran in Serial Killer Magazine and is reproduced as written. Its subject is the definition itself, and its account of the FBI's is accurate: the 2005 symposium settled on two or more victims in separate events, dropping the earlier three victim and cooling off period requirements, and the wording quoted here is from the Morton report. The examples are recorded in this archive as John Wayne Gacy thirty three, Keith Hunter Jesperson eight established, and Arthur Shawcross thirteen. The author's closing proposal, to strike from the lists those who do not meet a stricter definition, is her argument and not this archive's practice; the roster records what a case actually establishes and lets the reader judge the category.