SERIAL KILLER DISCOVERED? INDIANA

[HairOfTheDog]

7 Women Confirmed Dead...So Far

Police responded to a call from the Motel 6 in Hammond, Indiana on Friday night.


There they found the strangled body of ^ 19-year-old Afrikka Hardy.

Something led police to a 43 year-old man living in Gary, Indiana (suspect not yet identified to the public). He has sex offense convictions in Texas and a residential entry conviction in northwest Indiana.

When the suspect was taken into custody for questioning, he surprised police by confessing to the murders of 7 women.


^ 35-year-old Anith Jones was reported missing in Merrillville on October 8^th. Her's was one of six sets of remains found at various abandoned properties this weekend.

The other five victims have not yet been identified.

Story developing.

Sources:
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/have-poli...a/29228364
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/have-poli...a/29228364

[Maggot]

I sometimes wonder what's happening now that nobody knows about yet. It drives me crazy when I think about it to long.

[HairOfTheDog]

I sometimes wonder what's happening now that nobody knows about yet. It drives me crazy when I think about it to long.

It's crazy how many people are doing really messed up shit to other people completely under the radar -- whilst simultaneously going about their daily lives looking like everyone else.

Police have now publicly identified the suspect in this case. He's a registered sex offender.



At least one of his victims (the one at the Motel 6) was working as a prostitute when she was killed. Police are still investigating motive and the backgrounds of the suspect and victims (RIP).

[Duchess]

I always expect serial killers to be white. Weird.

[ramseycat]

I always expect serial killers to be white. Weird.

Me too. Maybe because that is how they are usually portrayed on TV.

[FAHQTOO]

I knew there was a reason I never went to Hammond. It's right beside Gary, which is the butthole of Indiana.

[Blindgreed1]

I always expect serial killers to be white. Weird.

Most of them are.

[Maggot]

Don't get sketchy but..........I'm non-Hispanic.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I remember mid to late 70's, seemed like there was a new serial killer every other week.

[Cheyne]

I always expect serial killers to be white. Weird.

Most of them are.

I thought the same thing.

1960's; 71.9% white to 28.1% non-white
1970's; 62% white, 38% non-white
1980's; 54.6% white, 45.4 non-white.

In the 1990's, Blacks overtook Whites by 47.7% to 41.9% respectively with Hispanics coming on strong at 8.6% (up from .6% in the 1960's).

From 2000-2009, Blacks were at 56.6%, Whites 31.8% and Hispanics 10.7%*

Most serial killers stay within their own race when committing their crimes. It is well known that young, blonde white women are more apt to be on the news as victims of crime than any other "type" of person. Perhaps we don't hear about the Black serial killers because their victims are also Black?

*Source: Radford University/FGCU Serial Killer Database

[HairOfTheDog]

Cumulatively, there are more white serial killers than serial killers of any other race in the US. That's not surprising since there have historically been more white people than any other race in the country. But, all races (and countries) produce such monsters, without exception.

A couple or few more serial killers of any certain race over any time period can change the "serial killer race percentage" in the US a lot because, fortunately, serial killers are a rare breed.


^These are the victims of the Green River Killer -- Gary Ridgeway. White male; Happily married; Steadily employed; Sociable. Liked to kill female prostitutes of all ages and races. He has an IQ of 82 and still was able to elude LE for decades.


^These are the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer -- White male; Single; Homosexual; Reclusive; Steadily employed. He liked to have sex with young men, race irrelevant -- and then kill, dismember, and eat them.


^These are the victims of Anthony Sowell. Single male; black; middle-aged. He liked to drink and do drugs with women who also liked to party -- then strangle them and stuff them into the walls of his Cleveland home. Maybe he only liked black women? Or, maybe he didn't care about race and there just happened to be a whole lot more black women on hand in the area?


^These are the victims of Ted Bundy. Single white male; charming and sociable; highly intelligent. He liked to abduct, rape and kill young white brunette women; likely because they reminded him of an ex.


Then there was Richard Ramirez^. Single Hispanic satanist male. He just liked to break and enter, rape, beat and kill his robbery victims -- victims' ages, genders and races irrelevant.

There is a lot of diversity amongst serial killers and their victims.

The traditional "serial killer profile" stereotype is full of myths. The FBI behavioral analysts and LE profilers know better than to assume an unidentified serial killer must be a reclusive white male with a history of abusing animals.

They also know better than to assume there must be at least three separate killers in an area when they find six victims of three different races murdered in the exact same manner -- some serial killers only prey on victims of their same race; other serial kilers across races. Some serial killers are smart; some are borderline retarded. Some serial killers have a "type"; some care nothing about victimology.

Not much is yet known about Darren Vann and his alleged victims. But, it's unusual for a suspected serial killer to be so cooperative so quickly after being arrested and lead LE straight to the victims' bodies. In any case, I'm very glad he's off the streets.


Related report: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/public...ial-murder

[Blindgreed1]

I always expect serial killers to be white. Weird.

Most of them are.

I thought the same thing.

1960's; 71.9% white to 28.1% non-white
1970's; 62% white, 38% non-white
1980's; 54.6% white, 45.4 non-white.

In the 1990's, Blacks overtook Whites by 47.7% to 41.9% respectively with Hispanics coming on strong at 8.6% (up from .6% in the 1960's).

From 2000-2009, Blacks were at 56.6%, Whites 31.8% and Hispanics 10.7%*

Most serial killers stay within their own race when committing their crimes. It is well known that young, blonde white women are more apt to be on the news as victims of crime than any other "type" of person. Perhaps we don't hear about the Black serial killers because their victims are also Black?

*Source: Radford University/FGCU Serial Killer Database

This information is based on those who have been caught and the validity of the offender's confessions. There are some folks up in Quantico that don't believe numbers always equate to facts. See Henery Lee Lucas and his pal Otis' confessions.

[HairOfTheDog]

UPDATES

Victims


^ Teairra Batey, 28, had a fiance, a son, and a close family.

Two more of the seven known victims of Darren Deon Vann have now been identified. Teairra Batey, 28 and Christine Williams, 36. Batey and Williams were Gary residents, both are black females. The three other known African-American female victims have not been identified and police don't believe missing persons reports were filed on them.

How Vann was caught
Afrikka Hardy and her friend advertised prostitution services on-line at Chicago's Backpage.com. When the friend started receiving odd text messages from Hardy's phone, she sent a male friend to the Motel 6 where Afrikka's body was found. Afrikka's friend gave police the phone number of the man Afrikka had arranged to meet at the motel that night -- police quickly tracked it to Vann. Vann reportedly had Afrikka's phone when he was arrested.

All of the bodies thus far located had been dumped in abandoned homes within miles of each other. There are estimated to be 10,000 abandoned homes in Gary these days. Here is one of the homes where bodies were located:


Previous Conviction
Vann served four years for sexual assault in Texas, 2009-2013 .He reportedly tried to strangle the woman he raped, but was classified as "low risk" when released from prison. He is registered as a sex offender in Texas.

Vann had not registered as a sex offender in Indiana and did not have a criminal record in Indiana.

Motive / Crimes: Police reportedly don't have a motive for the killings at this time.


Hammond Police Chief John Doughty ^ said Vann, 43, may be responsible for many more murders. LE in Indiana and Texas are revisiting missing person cases and looking for links. Right now, Vann is only talking about Indiana. He says he wants to be executed for his crimes.

Vann's background
Vann's lived in both Austin, Texas and Gary, Indiana over the years. He was a Marine who was honorably discharged before he was arrested for the aggravated sexual assault in Texas. He was married for 16 years to a woman who was 29 years his senior. She says he was never violent towards her or in front of her.

Vann's brother, Reginald Vann, said that Darren was arrested at their sister's house. Reginald released this statement:
To the victims, I’m sorry for their loss. I’m a father of two daughters myself. This comes as a shock to us and our household. I just wish all the best. This is a painful moment for us too. I just wish (them) all the best and I’m sorry for their loss. I just wanted to say something, man, they deserve at least that.

Refs:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../17598281/
http://heavy.com/news/2014/10/darren-deo...ika-hardy/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/10/20/s...t-indiana/

[HairOfTheDog]

This information is based on those who have been caught and the validity of the offender's confessions. There are some folks up in Quantico that don't believe numbers always equate to facts. See Henery Lee Lucas and his pal Otis' confessions.

Any perpetrator statistics can only be based on those who have been caught, of course.

The numbers Cheyne posted are perpetrator statistics -- they're not contested.

The number of each confirmed serial killer's known/confessed/estimated victims (whether exaggerated or under-reported) is not relevant in counting serial killers and calculating the percentage-by-race of serial killers in the US.

[Blindgreed1]

This information is based on those who have been caught and the validity of the offender's confessions. There are some folks up in Quantico that don't believe numbers always equate to facts. See Henery Lee Lucas and his pal Otis' confessions.

Any perpetrator statistics can only be based on those who have been caught, of course.

The numbers Cheyne posted are perpetrator statistics -- they're not contested.

The number of each confirmed serial killer's known/confessed/estimated victims (whether exaggerated or under-reported) is not relevant in counting serial killers and calculating the percentage-by-race of serial killers in the US.

I think you missed my point. The "known" lies in who's been caught. Serial Killers are organized killers which is why they operate for years at a time under the radar. Any "perpetrator statistics" generated can hardly be used as a predictive index. It can only be used as a snapshot in time of data when the #'s were run. Profiling has come a long way since the 70's and will continue to evolve moving forward but many things still remain the same. I recommend "Sexual Homocide: Patterns and Motives" if you haven't already read it. I haven't kept up like I used to over the last 10 years, but I'm sure Douglass and Ressler are still pumping out some pretty fascinating stuff.

[HairOfTheDog]

^ Cheyne posted historical statistics related to known serial killers; the numbers and profiles of their confirmed and unconfirmed victims have no bearing on the validity of the known serial killer statistics posted.

But, I understand now that you switched topics to predictive indexes -- thanks. I agree that historical data (confirmed or otherwise) should not be used as a sole or definitive base for attempting to identify potential suspects in an on-going investigation or attempting to profile future potential serial killers before they offend. Rather, the historical data is only one of the many tools that may be useful in those efforts.

I find the theories of MacDonald, Douglass, Ressler, et all to be interesting reads, but most of their theories in relation to predictive indexes for serial killers have never been validated by research and have been debunked by the growing compilation of verified profiles for known offenders. IMO, serial killers are as diverse as any other category of criminals when it comes to backgrounds and motives.

[Blindgreed1]

^ Cheyne posted historical statistics related to known serial killers; the numbers and profiles of their confirmed and unconfirmed victims have no bearing on the validity of the known serial killer statistics posted.

But, I understand now that you switched topics to predictive indexes -- thanks. I agree that historical data (confirmed or otherwise) should not be used as a sole or definitive base for attempting to identify potential suspects in an on-going investigation or attempting to profile future potential serial killers before they offend. Rather, the historical data is only one of the many tools that may be useful in those efforts.

I find the theories of MacDonald, Douglass, Ressler, et all to be interesting reads, but most of their theories in relation to predictive indexes for serial killers have never been validated by research and have been debunked by the growing compilation of verified profiles for known offenders. IMO, serial killers are as diverse as any other category of criminals when it comes to backgrounds and motives.

I would have to agree since control and fantasy are the driving forces. And really, it's all relative to the original topic in that, as time goes on they get better at what they do. The tools they use are evolving (i.e. using the internet during the stalking stage). How many currently operating in any given area at one time is a complete unknown, usually it's not until after bodies start turning up. Society as a whole is evolving into an anonymous entity. It wasn't so many years ago that everyone knew the grouchy old man who lived down the street by name as well as the kindly widdow who baked cookies every year for the paperboy and the postman. Nowdays, all but a few good neighbors are complete strangers. Serial killers are nearly impossible to identify now, give it another 20 years. How many are operating right now? Unknown. Therefore the statistics and data are variable and subject to change at any given moment that more bodies are discovered in various parts of the world. How could you possibly know that Blacks were responsible for 56.6% in the last decade when it's certain victims from that era and their killers have yet to be discovered? When you stated "A couple or few more serial killers of any certain race over any time period can change the "serial killer race percentage" in the US a lot because, fortunately, serial killers are a rare breed." you were preaching to the choir.

[HairOfTheDog]

I understand and agree with a lot of what you just posted, Gunnar. Interesting thoughts.

Understanding why people do what they do -- criminal activity or otherwise -- is definitely a dynamic, rather than stagnant, study and pursuit. We're on the same page -- norms and abnorms change with the times -- variables will always be present within individuals and across the collective society.

I do, however, feel comfortable using statistics. It's valid and accurate to state the number of known/convicted serial killers and their races, so long as the statistics are derived from accurate tracking records/databases. Those "hard" numbers are not variables, they're objective pieces of data (even considering the unavoidable margin of error for wrongful convictions and record keeping mistakes).

It's my opinion only that there's now a large enough sample of the very small portion of the population that is "known" to serial kill to make the counts/percentages just one factor that can be legitimately considered in full profiling and suspect-narrowing efforts. Every statistical base, no matter what the subject of focus, is based on knowns -- just as some things that are currently unknown will later inevitably become known and eventually populate the sample base. That's true whether the subject of focus is serial killers, serial cheaters, secret cereal snackers, etc...

Where numbers and percentages are objective and can be easily validated, motives and drivers cannot, IMO. I'm with you there. Having said that, I too think it's useful and interesting to investigate and research commonalities, potential predictors, and increased psychological and biological understanding of criminal minds.

Anyway, we humans are complex interesting mofos; luckily, a very small percentage of us get off on killing other people. Still, anything that is done with the goal of reducing that small percentage of the population even further is very worthwhile to me.

[Duchess]

a very small percentage of us get off on killing other people.

That interests me but I guess it's a whole other topic. Why people do the bad things they do, things we would never even contemplate, not only do them but take pleasure in doing so.

[Blindgreed1]

I understand and agree with a lot of what you just posted, Gunnar. Interesting thoughts.

Understanding why people do what they do -- criminal activity or otherwise -- is definitely a dynamic, rather than stagnant, study and pursuit. We're on the same page -- norms and abnorms change with the times -- variables will always be present within individuals and across the collective society.

I do, however, feel comfortable using statistics. It's valid and accurate to state the number of known/convicted serial killers and their races, so long as the statistics are derived from accurate tracking records/databases. Those "hard" numbers are not variables, they're objective pieces of data (even considering the unavoidable margin of error for wrongful convictions and record keeping mistakes).

It's my opinion only that there's now a large enough sample of the very small portion of the population that is "known" to serial kill to make the counts/percentages just one factor that can be legitimately considered in full profiling and suspect-narrowing efforts. Every statistical base, no matter what the subject of focus, is based on knowns -- just as some things that are currently unknown will later inevitably become known and eventually populate the sample base. That's true whether the subject of focus is serial killers, serial cheaters, secret cereal snackers, etc...

Where numbers and percentages are objective and can be easily validated, motives and drivers cannot, IMO. I'm with you there. Having said that, I too think it's useful and interesting to investigate and research commonalities, potential predictors, and increased psychological and biological understanding of criminal minds.

Anyway, we humans are complex interesting mofos; luckily, a very small percentage of us get off on killing other people. Still, anything that is done with the goal of reducing that small percentage of the population even further is very worthwhile to me.

Like I said, I haven't been keeping as close an eye on the whole SK scene as I used to. But 10 years ago the data was still horrible and just starting to get cleaned up. I'm sure the statistics are easier to run now but I still have to wonder (and question) how many mass murderers were included in the data due to the inability to distinguish between the two in years past.