Disorganized Offenders

The work of a disorganized offender is usually pretty evident.  Disorganized offender crimes are usually very chaotic, unplanned, intense, and often have bizarre elements involved in them.  When I think of a disorganized offender I automatically think of Richard Trenton Chase.  Richard Trenton Chase (also referred to as the Vampire of Sacramento) was a textbook disorganized killer.  He was so disorganized, in fact, that he practically left a blood trail straight back to his apartment.  He did not try to clean up or cover up anything, no attempts at preventing detection at all.  Chase was a severely mentally ill man who had been institutionalized on more than one occasion, his schizophrenia often initiating severely bizarre paranoid delusions and behaviors (such as that someone had stolen his pulmonary artery and the fact that he killed rabbits and injected their blood into himself and killed animals and ate their flesh raw).  Add on top of this the fact that he began to abuse drugs and alcohol at a very early age, which exacerbated his psychoses, and you have a recipe for disaster.   That disaster hit when Chase became obsessed with the delusion that his blood was turning to powder, and he imagined that in order to save himself he needed to ingest blood of humans.  He killed six people within a month, men, women, children, in horrendous manners and vilely desecrating some of them after death in acts of necrophilia, cannibalism, and post offense abdominal mutilations of the two women that he raped post-mortem.  Chase also had pathological focus on bodily functions and I will leave it at that.  It did not take long for him to be caught and it usually never does with disorganized killers of this type.  


Disorganized crime scenes and disorganized offenses can be the result of something other than a mentally ill offender.  Two of the major categories that could produce disorganized crimes and crime scenes are a) ones in which drugs are involved, and/or b) ones in which there is a sort of “temporary insanity” involved in the passion of the moment, usually involving others with whom the offender has had a deep relationship and feels there is some great betrayal that just makes them lose their mind; or in protection of someone of which the offender has a deep relationship.




Just to clarify, I am no profiler

Just for clarification, I am not a profiler.  I am merely someone fascinated with human behavior, particularly criminology, who also happens to have a brain saturated with tons of data on serial offenders, unsolved murders, serial killings both solved and unsolved, and data on the offenders themselves.  I do have knowledge gained from years of education and degrees in psychology, but that does not make someone a profiler.  I do, additionally, have real experience with sociopathic behaviors, but that does not make someone a profiler either.  To be a profiler you have to have experience like John Douglas, Robert Ressler, Park Dietz, Candace Delong, Katherine Ramsland, etc.  I do not have those years of experience.  I study the behavior, the crimes, the profiling process, but that does not make me a profiler.  

I heard a quote once that I can’t remember the origin of right now but truly applies:

“Don’t be humble, you really aren’t that great.”

I am not trying to be humble, because I am not that great LOL.  But I do try to do what I can do to analyze cases with the lexicon and knowledge I do have.  That has to count for something I think.  At least I am trying to do something.

John Douglas, Richard Walter, and the LISK

I would love to know what John Douglas thinks about the LISK.  Mr. Douglas is retired now I reckon, but he used to be a criminal profiler in the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit.  In fact, he was one of the first ever anywhere.  I have always been fascinated with the forensic psychology/criminal psychology aspects of behavior and, truly, just behavior in general–particularly motivations, so it was a natural progression for me to be drawn to profiling and, hence, profilers and the FBI Behavioral Science Unit.  I have read tons of information and research from many different icons in the field of Criminal Psychology and profiling, and even from different personages within the Behavioral Science Unit and I just have to say that John Douglas’s work is the most fascinating to me because he truly lived within the monster.  He has something extra, does Mr. Douglas.  He has an instinct that goes beyond just sterile profiling and criminal analysis.  He seems to know not only how to read the offenders from their behaviors, but how to truly invade their psyche and their surreal world enough to know how to get to them when others can’t.  Additionally, Douglas is originally from Long Island so he would have additional knowledge that others just would not have.  I would have loved to have seen Douglas interview Kuklinski but I thoroughly understand why he didnt and why Park Dietz did.  I am not undermining Park Dietz, he is a genius in his own right, but I think that Douglas has a different aura about him than Dietz and his no-bullshit approach would have put Kuklinski up at arms and maybe even provoked a violent reaction.  I really do wish that he would get involved in the LISK case, if he isn’t already.

I would also be interested in Richard Walter’s opinions on the LISK.  I don’t know much about his work or his process (apparently he does not like to write things down much) but from what I have seen and heard in interviews in relation to his work with the Vidocq society, Walter’s knowledge in criminal behavior psychology is profound.

Richard Kuklinski

Richard Leonard Kuklinski (1935-2006),  was a hired hit man who contracted for mostly “mafia”-related murders.   Richard’s nickname came to be “Iceman,” in reference to his refrigeration of murdered victims.  [The bodies were frozen soon after death, then kept refrigerated for up to a year, then placed in some remote location so that they would have time to defrost and decompose before someone found them; this method was only discovered after a body was found much sooner than expected and some of the tissues were still frozen at a time and place where it could not have happened naturally.]  Richard Kuklinski is often referred to as a serial killer, I do not classify him as such.  Most of the motivation of killing for Kuklinski was material.  There are aspects to some of his crimes, however, that are puzzling.  Even though torture and pain were sometimes requested by the persons who hired him in relation to targets, Kuklinski seemed to take a little too much pleasure and pride in coming up with bizarre and sadistic forms of torture and death.  Also, when hearing the stories from his wife, additional evidence is submitted for the argument of him being a sadist.  So, then the motive for his murders tends to become murky.  Did he, in fact, do it for the money as he says? And then he just took pride in his work? Or was he just being paid to be a sadist who killed people for kicks? This man was obviously intelligent and capable, yet somehow he thought that the only thing he could do to support his family was kill people for money (so he says).  Was it just cognitive dissonance?  Did he really believe that or was he living in some sort of self-delusion? In an interview, Kuklinski was asked, Do you consider yourself an assassin? And Kuklinski answered:  “Assassin, oooh, sounds so exotic.  No, I was just a murderer.”  Kuklinski changed MOs like he changed clothes.  He had no particular preference and often just killed in the manner and by the weapon which he was told to do so.  There was no discernible pattern, no ritual, no true signature.   Kuklinski reminds me of H. H. Holmes (Herman Mudgett) in so much of his methods and pathology.  And so does the killer of the girls at Gilgo, except there is no sign of the sadism such as that involved in Kuklinski and Holmes’ actions and murders (that I know of).  What I do see is that I really do not think the motive is the same as the needs that drive serial killers.  I truly think with the LISK (as I define him) had different motives and does not consider himself a serial killer.  I really do not think that officials will ever catch this guy by trying to trail, track, or trap him with the “normal” serial killer trappings.

But…then again maybe I am overthinking it.  Maybe he really is just as simple an offender as others think and I am just giving him way too much credit? Maybe where I am seeing skill and finesse, intelligence and forethought, is really just pure luck? Maybe he is really just a simple serial killer, with an iq of 80 something, and the only reason he hasn’t gotten caught has nothing to do with his abilities, but with happenstance–like with Gary Ridgway, whose iq of 80 something did not stop him from not being caught for 20 years.

Long Island and Jack the Ripper

I think that the LISK case in so many ways parallels the Jack the Ripper case.  Not necessarily in specifics of the crimes themselves nor the offender(s), but in why it was not solved.  I think that, just as in the Ripper case, certain things are cluttering up the clearness of vision of how simple things really are.  For example, in the Ripper case many have just been dazzled by the contradictory levels of disorganized and organized behaviors of the offenses.  I don’t see the contradiction.  Why? Because to me its simple really, there is more involved than what is taken into consideration but the base crimes are less complicated.     Simply put, I see the Ripper’s crimes as 1) Polly Ann Nichols, 2) Annie Chapman 3) Liz Stride, and 4.) Catherine Eddowes.  Liz Stride I am unsure of but leaning towards a yes it was related but he did not get to finish what he started.  There may have been more, but I do not think that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim.  Now, how did I come to this conclusion? A.  Victimology, B. Offense behaviors, C. Crime scene analysis, D. Offender typology.  Now, why do I not see the contradiction in disorganized and organized behaviors? Answer:  Because I think the two behaviors were not made by the same individuals.  The level of disorganization in the crimes against Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, and Catherine Eddowes, (Liz Stride is not as profound disorganization as the others) does not fit with an offender who takes the time to carefully extract organs.  Conclusion:  Taking into consideration the environment and the sociology of this place at this time and point in history, I think that the organ extractions were not done by the Ripper, but someone else, either at the morgue or before then sometime while the body was not in official custody, in order to sell them.  If one studies the history of the time, one can easily see this is not so far-fetched an idea as it sounds.  Why do I not consider Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?  A.  Victimology, B. Offense behaviors, C. Crime scene analysis, D. Offender typology.  This was obviously a very personal killing, not like the previous ones.  Even Catherine Eddowes’ murder pales in comparison to the “intimacy” involved in the offenses against Mary Kelly.  This person did not want to just kill her, they wanted to obliterate her entire existence.  This comes from a lot of time stewing in resentment and basking in fantasies of destruction, in other words:  There was a long history between Mary Kelly and her killer, and levels of organization that (when removing the whole organ removal concept as being non-related to the Ripper) was just not found with the Ripper victims.  Conclusion:  These were not committed by the same individual.

How does this relate to the LISK? Well, it seems to me that in ways the LISK has been overcomplicated and yet the simplest facts have been overlooked—Just as in the Ripper Case.  Just as in the Ripper case, there have been umpteen conspiracy theories, nefarious claims, and suspected persons of involvement ranging from politicians to doctors to police and everything in between.  Just as in the Ripper case, there have been whispers of groups of rich deviants and devil worshippers, while what seems to me are obvious clues are overlooked.  As in the Ripper case with the 3 (or 4) murders previous not containing consistent behavioral aspects and being entirely set apart from what occurred with Mary Kelly—It is also apparent to me in the LISK case that A.  the older dismemberment murders are not related to the four girls found at Gilgo, B. The levels of organization and “skill” if you will of the LISK are not consistent when the phonecalls are taken into consideration, hence, I believe that either 1. The phone calls were not made by the killer or 2.  The phone calls were made by the killer as a deliberate tool to mislead.  In the Ripper case an additional note that separates the other murders from that of Mary Kelly is the motive and general ambience of the crime.  Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, (Liz Stride?), and Catherine Eddowes’ deaths showed anger and detachment, with the motive apparently being an expression of anger.  Mary Kelly’s murder is much more intimate, the motive is not just an expression of anger, it is apparent in Mary Kelly’s death that the offender wanted to obliterate her entire existence.  It could be said, then, that the motive was more akin to an askew love than to anger.  In looking at the four girls at Gilgo, there is no apparent motive.  This within itself is a flag.  With sadists, there are obvious cues and clues, same with the “normal” serial killer.  There is none of that with the girls at Gilgo.  Hence:  I think it has been overcomplicated.  I do not think these girls were killed by a serial killer, but by someone who wanted them dead.  There is a BIG difference.  Serial killers do not want dead victims.  Death is just a side effect of getting what they want and need.   It is my opinion that someone wanted these four girls found at Gilgo dead and, so, made them dead.  I really think it is that simple.  I don’t know why, but I do feel that this is a very logical conclusion.