Red Rooms: Real, Fake Or Plausible?

[Xanatic*]

Did the aforementioned cannibal do the recording in the style of a cooking show?

 

[Lord Lucan]

Did the aforementioned cannibal do the recording in the style of a cooking show?

Not that I'm aware of, however, you can purchase tiles from the bathroom where the killing/murder took place as well as various kitchen implements (knives etc) belonging to him on numerous websites that deal in such things.

 

[Peripart]

Not that I'm aware of, however, you can purchase tiles from the bathroom where the killing/murder took place as well as various kitchen implements (knives etc) belonging to him on numerous websites that deal in such things.

Better still, just watch the IT Crowd episode, "Moss and the German", and you'll get the general idea.

 

[Coastaljames]

It is, sadly, common for paedophiles in wealthier countries to pay to watch children being sexually abused live on cam in less developed countries. Often the watcher will "direct" the abuse taking place.

There have been cases where children have been tortured and murdered as part of this abuse.

This is fact. I work with many men convicted of such crimes.


Are these events "Red Rooms"? Call them what you want...people/children are abused and tortured on cam for the delight of others every single day.

 

[Stormkhan]

I think there's a bit of blurring between fact and urban legend, of incident and potential incident.
These days, with the ubiquity of video recording equipment - even on a mobile 'phone - combined with the many non-professional platforms they can be displayed on, is it any wonder that such content gets "leaked"?
Murderers - especially serial killers - have always 'displayed' their gruesome handiwork. Christie using a human femur to repair his garden fence was almost subconscious. Photographs of the victims have been around since ownership of cameras. Tape recordings and photos of the Moors Murderers. Videos by such as Lake and Ng. All are 'created' by the killer. These records are created by a killer for their own gratification, in one way or another. Even phone footage of someone being assaulted and end up dead gets uploaded. If they are circulated in the media, dark web or not, it is for the titillation of the viewer.
There are many crime scene photos of the mutilations of the Black Dahlia, Jack the Ripper and so on. These, in effect, are "public record". If a person got their jollies from seeing real death and torture, it's not hard to find - regardless of the morality.
Thus, I suggest, that if there was a business out there which kidnapped, tortured and murdered people for the gratification of a particular group, they'd have to make it really pay. Special effects now are such that you could fake it, say it was real, and still get paid. If you consider that the risk to The Organisation was higher (by repetition, resources and personnel) than if one rich bloke wanted to watch someone tortured, one must ask - in a cold, calculated way - what kind of a business plan is it? And is this plan viable?
As I said, the platform and technology is there for an increase in recorded abuse. So is it a case that increased availability means increased ... er ... exposure? Or is the increased exposure a sign that there is a shadowy cabal who makes money from pervert rich guys by killing? Even dark web shows stuff that is graphic, horrific and gruesome ... but is it only showing stuff that has been censored by the mainstream and not created specifically for the depraved?
Think about it.
Produce a high-quality film about a documented killer, as yet uncaptured, and do it in the now done-to-death style of 'found footage'. You could sell it to a rich sicko. You could upload it to the dark web. How, exactly, do you realise your investment? Even if your true nature - the fakery - is exposed, you've sold it to the rich sicko, at no real risk to yourself. And no one is really dead.
Yet.

 

[Coastaljames]

Produce a high-quality film about a documented killer, as yet uncaptured, and do it in the now done-to-death style of 'found footage'. You could sell it to a rich sicko. You could upload it to the dark web. How, exactly, do you realise your investment? Even if your true nature - the fakery - is exposed, you've sold it to the rich sicko, at no real risk to yourself. And no one is really dead.
Yet.

I think your whole post was really good, thanks. And it really made me think. The idea of a criminal operating a fake red room to make loot and avoid having to do anything awful is fantastic. And I'm sure has happened in some shape or form. I'm reminded of Hideshi Hino's "Flowers of Flesh and Blood". Which to all intents and purposes is a fake snuff movie.

However - live abuse directed by the viewer cannot be faked.

 

[Stormkhan]

Thanks. I'm no expert but, it might be possible. Unless "Rich Pervert" is in the room, there's always a time lag?
It might be suggested that there's a digital record of "Rich Pervert" issuing a demand for a particular act. That particular act, in turn, is recorded digitally. Thus there's evidence of both crimes and both have the same to loose if those digital records are leaked, investigated or sold on the market.
Live abuse directed by the viewer is exactly the same as if the viewer was in the room directing it. It runs the same risks of discovery. Being online doesn't confer anonymity, but makes it harder to disclose the event. The bigger the crime, the more effort will be put into discovery. And being online, in fact, increases the evidence.
Example:
Bloggs is a wealthy pervert. He gets off on seeing children raped. He doesn't need to do it himself, he just wants to watch it.
Options:
1) He pays one or two willing staff to go onto the streets, capture a child. They take the victim to a suitable location (such as an abandoned factory) and Bloggs watches while the horrific deed is done. He may even record it on his smartphone. Victim, being disposable to him, is left dead. They leave.
Now, the risks? Police uncover forensic evidence of the crime, the participants and the opportunity. Bloggs, being rich, might be able to delay or re-route the case. But, ultimately, the demand is on the forensic evidence being gathered.
2) He pays "Sicko Corporation" to send him a live feed of exactly the same crime. Now, the police forensic investigation discovers Sicko Corporation did the heinous crime. There is also the computer forensics to suggest that a live feed was involved.
Bloggs, being rich, can interfere with the prosecution. If wealthy enough, so too can Sicko Corporation. But now both criminals are reliant on a member of staff not to blab, or "accidentally" share the footage on the internet, or even ask for payment not to squeal*. While bribery has reduced the chance of discovery, involvement of third parties has increased it. Also, the involvement of Bloggs using computer equipment has, in fact, increased the available evidence that can link him with the original crime.
Factors to add into this consideration.
a) Public outcry and pressure. Being a pervert and killing a child is bad enough, but doing it for a price for another?
b) Is this a single event? Don't forget that repeating an offense means increased chances of forensic detection.
c) Creating a "Red Room" creates a false sense of security. It may be 'ideal' for the crime but repeated use of a location increases it's discovery and links to the criminals.

* Attempting to blackmail a killer may be a trope in crime fiction but it's surprising how stupid some folks can be.
"I know you've killed someone! Pay me money or I'll tell!"
"So ... you know I'm willing to kill. And you are threatening me?"
"Er ... when you put it like that, never mind."
When Morgan Freeman performed that scene in Batman, it was saying something that's been on the minds of crime readers for decades!

 

[Coastaljames]

In my experience of working with very, very odd people I think you would be suprised at what huge risks people to take to indulge their "pleasures". People aren't stupid, very few think they can get away with dodgy stuff forever. They know they will be caught. But they still do it. Their lust for satisfaction is driving and all-consuming. They are prepared to take the risk.

 

[Coastaljames]

He pays one or two willing staff to go onto the streets, capture a child.

It may be 'ideal' for the crime but repeated use of a location increases it's discovery and links to the criminals.

Awful to say but firstly - "capture" is very rare. Most broadcast abuse is committed by a family member. Usually a parent.

Secondly...the "location" is more often than not the child or the parent's bedroom.

 

[Stormkhan]

I know. Exactly. These tragic statistics add to the unlikelihood of a "Red Room" company.
It must also be said that horror sells. Even on the dark web, if something gets the reputation then it gets the traffic, regardless of the actual truth. Twerps saying "Oh, yeah! You gotta see this! It's really REAL!" is great promotion. The assumption is that they are witnessing, vicariously, a crime being committed. It hold the same weight as when you see click-bait You Tube bollox declaring "AT LAST!!!!! A viDEO of a REAL alion spacecraft!!!!!!!!"

 

[Coastaljames]

I think we can conclude that, tragically, "red room" type activities have and do occur.

I think we can also conclude that it would be pretty stupid to actually form a company to do it, and totally unnecesary and counter-productive.



P.s.s - I would pay good money to see a "real lion spacecraft"!

 

[maximus otter]

I think there's a bit of blurring between fact and urban legend, of incident and potential incident.
These days, with the ubiquity of video recording equipment - even on a mobile 'phone - combined with the many non-professional platforms they can be displayed on, is it any wonder that such content gets "leaked"?
Murderers - especially serial killers - have always 'displayed' their gruesome handiwork. Christie using a human femur to repair his garden fence was almost subconscious. Photographs of the victims have been around since ownership of cameras. Tape recordings and photos of the Moors Murderers. Videos by such as Lake and Ng. All are 'created' by the killer. These records are created by a killer for their own gratification, in one way or another. Even phone footage of someone being assaulted and end up dead gets uploaded. If they are circulated in the media, dark web or not, it is for the titillation of the viewer.
There are many crime scene photos of the mutilations of the Black Dahlia, Jack the Ripper and so on. These, in effect, are "public record". If a person got their jollies from seeing real death and torture, it's not hard to find - regardless of the morality.
Thus, I suggest, that if there was a business out there which kidnapped, tortured and murdered people for the gratification of a particular group, they'd have to make it really pay. Special effects now are such that you could fake it, say it was real, and still get paid. If you consider that the risk to The Organisation was higher (by repetition, resources and personnel) than if one rich bloke wanted to watch someone tortured, one must ask - in a cold, calculated way - what kind of a business plan is it? And is this plan viable?
As I said, the platform and technology is there for an increase in recorded abuse. So is it a case that increased availability means increased ... er ... exposure? Or is the increased exposure a sign that there is a shadowy cabal who makes money from pervert rich guys by killing? Even dark web shows stuff that is graphic, horrific and gruesome ... but is it only showing stuff that has been censored by the mainstream and not created specifically for the depraved?
Think about it.
Produce a high-quality film about a documented killer, as yet uncaptured, and do it in the now done-to-death style of 'found footage'. You could sell it to a rich sicko. You could upload it to the dark web. How, exactly, do you realise your investment? Even if your true nature - the fakery - is exposed, you've sold it to the rich sicko, at no real risk to yourself. And no one is really dead.
Yet.

Camgirls follow the punters' directions, and seem to have monetised the affair quite discreetly and profitably.

It's a quantum, victimless leap from killing for entertainment, but it shows that the tech is there to support such a thing.

maximus otter

 

[Coastaljames]

...it shows that the tech is there to support such a thing.

Well. All you need is a smartphone and an internet connection.

 

[Stormkhan]

I've never heard of Camgirls.
Shows how innocent I am.
Though the technology is there, when it comes to criminal investigation, there's a vast difference between online sex and murder. It can be done, but does this come with anonymity by oversight or a lack of technology to see.