Quote:
Originally Posted by JudoChop!
As posted in one of the links I have provided.
Myth Number One
Unless you hear about a serial killer at large in your area, you can assume no serial killers are living in your community
The accepted definition of a serial killer is a person who kills at least three times with a cooling off period in between his murders.
Police are reluctant to label a murder as a possible serial homicide. Telling the community a serial killer is out there stirs up a lot of unpleasant attention. The bad publicity kills tourism, and citizens start asking police what they are doing about catching this creep terrorizing their neighborhood. Besides, if one follows the "gotta have killed three" requirement, unless there are at least those three and there is DNA matching the murders or the bodies are all dumped in the same place, the police aren't going to say there is a serial killer involved.
|
I don't see the point of this. I mean, I understand it and I believe it's true, but it provides no support for this particular case and provides absolutely nothing to sway my skepticism. There hasn't even been a single smiley face ever found or reported in La Crosse, and so far that's their big claim linking all of these together. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the theory, I just don't think it's the case... Until there's any solid evidence, it's simply a matter of personal opinion.