Spookdaddy
Cuckoo
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 7,992
- Location
- Midwich
...is there a more fair comparison i.e. a wealthy person found guilty of serial killing/spree killing?
Or - and this is an interesting thing - do serial killers tend to come from middle or low-class backgrounds?...
Robert Durst may have been an exception to prove the rule - but he died before his appeal was heard, which means, bizarrely, that his original conviction was vacated (that is, made legally void). I think he was only ever tried for one murder (charges in another case were reduced to much lesser ones after a plea bargain) but his death put an end to any other legal proceedings.
Three known killings strongly associated with him - if not all tested in a court of law. There are suspicions of several others. I know this happens a lot when a known or suspected serial killer dies - however, in this case, I'm really quite sure that those suspicions are more than justified.
In general terms though, I wonder if the general anonymity which appears to be one of the characteristics - you might even say an enabler - of the classic serial killer is actually more difficult the more rarefied an individual's social environment is. That is, the smaller your group - the more observable you become.