Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Look Out, Look Out.

For Chemistry, I have an assignment that involves researching about a type of element (boiling/melting point, texture, uses, color, odor, family, group, interesting facts, etc) and because I had heard in biology that Arsenic was the Silent Killer, I called it and started looking facts on it, finding out that its only real use is poison. It's found on foods occasionally (mostly organic arsenic, inorganic is found in sodas), but from what I can gather, there's no actual health benefits. In fact, we just go for the arsenic that is the least deadly, not for what kind is healthy (as there is no such a thing, although I'm hoping I'm right on this.)

So on my reading of this Silent Killer (which may not be so silent, as my teacher had said it was odorless and colorless, both things which prove to be slightly false. I guess it's just silent when it infects things like water? o.e'), I was reminded of something my father told me.

Ever since I started reading the encyclopedia of serial killers, I was speaking to him about how when I was much younger, due to movies and many fictional works, I always assumed to gain status as a "serial killer", you needed to have fifty to a hundred murders. Thirty being the least. Although there has been the notorious and dangerous criminal who went over a good 100 body count, (Ted Bundy was a famous one, but he got a record of 30 to 35 murders), if you check out wiki's page on the list of serial killers and you'll see the number of names grow as the number of murders decline. In fact, really notorious serial killers like Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac Killer, and even Ted Bundy, don't have hundred or two hundred murders. Of course, that's due to a number of factors, primarily being that neither JtR or the Zodiac Killer were identified, and Ted Bundy received a shit load of coverage from the press, so they became well known despite their low body count (oh god, I don't mean that as a bad thing! It's so difficult to talk about serial killers without coming off as creepy o.e')

Anyways, so I was trying to decide why this happened and why the body count of "famous" serial killers was at times so low. In just looking at the wiki page, notice that the first 21 listed serial killers with the highest body count did not operate in America.

So...what are the chances of getting caught in the United States after one commits a murder?

When I was talking to my father, we were trying to figure out what could be the relationship between the number of murders you commit. and the probability of getting caught after each murder. Basically, if you kill someone, how much does your chance freedom drop? Fifty? Thirty? One of those?

Because something like that could really just depend on the type of place you live in, the consequences surrounding it, who the victim was, the type of murder done, and even what type of person the murderer is, etc, my father figured that, despite it being a large number, at least fifty percent of your chance of freedom could drop. So the question could be, how much body count can you accumulate before the chance of freedom is near non-existent? He thought of a relatively simple way of slightly figuring it out.

He told me, "Every time you're in an elevator with someone, imagine that the murder takes place there. Once you get out, check to see how many people see you come out, and remember how many saw you come in. Count them."

It's simple really, but I think it could work as a basic, basic, basic way of calculating it. Of course there could be other ways, but I've decided to try this one. Which will be difficult seeing as how I do all I can to avoid taking elevators with other people (maybe for this same reason o.e). It could explain why people at the U.S were caught after a few murders.

On the topic of serial killers, this might sound random, but Pedro López's story pisses me off beyond belief. Not just because of what he did, but because of what happened once in his near capture and death. He was almost caught once by a tribe after he tried to attack one of the children. The encyclopedia says this:
On release from prison, López started stalking young girls with a vengeance; by 1978 the killer estimated he had raped and slain at least 100 in Peru. His specialty appeared to be abducting children from Indian tribes,but the technique backfired when he was captured by agroup of Ayachucos in northern Peru while attempting to kidnap a nine-year-old girl. López was beaten by hiscaptors, stripped, and tortured. The Ayachucos were about to bury him alive when a female American missionary intervened, convincing Pedro’s captors that they should deliver him to the police. They grudgingly agreed and López was deported within days, Peruvian authorities declining to waste valuable time on Indian complaints. 
-The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, Michael Newton.
This is just what happens when people assume the world is the same all around. Sure you traveled and had the money to go there, lady. Alright, as a missionary I'm sure she had good motives, almost as nice as the pictures she probably took that surely will look incredibly pretty next to her fancy nightstand in her comfortable home back in the U.S. But not everything in the world has the fancy police, and the just system, and the same ideals of this nation. Now...that doesn't mean I completely agree with what the tribe was doing to him...but...what would I have done? What is the right answer to that? In the long run, the woman didn't know the consequences of interfering. She didn't know he would continue to murder and kill little girls, and it wasn't her fault. I don't know who the woman was and so should not attack her. But the fact is that he was imprisoned and released many times. He wasn't a master mind, he was just both incredibly lucky and born in the right country. Now they don't even know where he is.

And frankly, talking about him more is freaking me out.

It's funny how I can sit and read about these murderers all night, flinching and wincing at the description of the methods done, and yet I find it terrifyingly confusing how people can say they have a "favorite" serial killer (which I've heard a few times, in forums and the like). Are they just trying to do what so many have before and attempt to pretend to stand out and "be an original" to the masses without realizing the context of their own words? o.o Or are they actually serious?
(If you're wondering, going around saying what your favorite non-fictional, fully realistic serial killer is, won't make you look interesting or cool-weird. It'll just be fucking creepy. Kay?).

I may write about serial killers (or well...one of them. Being Rosegrave and Whiskey the prime ones) but I know that there's a blatant line between idolizing a terrible human being and exploring their thoughts and ideas. That's why I would probably never publish such work. Not because I'd be afraid of the controversy, but because I don't think I'll ever be able to do what some writers can. To be able to explore a heavy theme in a way that would both detach and attach my ideas from the story so that I don't cover it up completely with my thoughts and simply explore an idea. I don't think I'm even slightly ready for that.

Anyways, enough talk about serial killers. I spend enough of my time reading up on these demented individuals ._.

So I have no clue why I was doing it, but I was listening to the Bridal Chorus (Here Comes The Bride) song and couldn't stop thinking...why is it such a crappy song? Okay, it must have been so great at its beginning that now it's everywhere and anywhere and the first thing that pops into one's mind when we say "wedding, bride walking down the aisle." But it is so terrible. There are better classical songs, why use just Wagner's? Tradition is a crappy answer to that. Dx

Personally, I wouldn't mind playing this:

Mass Effect  - Vigil (in case the thingy up there isn't working, that's the name :3)

Plus, I had economics class today. Who knew my professor could begin the greatest retelling of the beginning of the recession with the words, "It was 1998, and young Charles was just getting out of school."

No wonder my classmates are convinced he's the one professor we have that's got "swag" o.o
~Becky

P.S: Changed the site name and little banner :D No clue why o.o' It just relates to Dream's story much better now.

2 comments:

  1. Serial killers! Fun fun fun fun.

    You did fine with that one thang I read for Rosegrave and Whiskey. I hope you continue with them D8

    Controversy... technicalities...yuch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:29 PM

    Vigil would be an awesome song to play at anything, but it really leans toward the ambient side of things. It would probably get drowned out.

    ReplyDelete

"Science and science fiction have done a kind of dance over the last century... The scientists make a finding. It inspires science fiction writers to write about it, and a host of young people read the science fiction and are excited, and inspired to become scientists...which they do, which then feeds again into another generation of science fiction and science..."
- Carl Sagan, in his message to future explorers of Mars.