Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The psychology of a killer
The psychology behind serial killers pdf
The psychology behind serial killers pdf
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The psychology of a killer
The Perfect Murder
The wind was strong, but in the sheltered clearing, all that could be felt was a slight breeze. The green leaves rustled, the birds sang, and the bees buzzed around, collecting pollen from the lilacs. It was the perfect place for Shannon to enjoy the warm sun and plot out her next murder.
Feelings of hatred and deceit ran deep some days. Getting her vengeance was the only way she could go on. Setting the plan in motion was the easy part; getting the details correct, however, took more thought and time.
There was the research to be done, which had to be carefully executed, so as not to raise suspicion. The supplies would need to be purchased (so she could get a feel for how well they would work), and the timing had to be
…show more content…
She needed the weapon, the location, and, most of all, a solid alibi.
There would be questions, investigations, fingerprints, photos of the crime scene, evidence collected, DNA testing, and more questions. There would be several visits to the police station, a polygraph, lawyers, and no stone would go unturned.
What would work best: a gun, rope, an explosion? Perhaps she could make it look like an accident, but would anyone fall for that? And she didn’t want innocent bystanders to be hurt in the process. No matter what she chose, it had to work. There would not be a second chance; no do-over. It was a one-time shot, and it had to be perfect.
The repercussions of failure would be far worse than the crime. People remember details, and if she were to get any of them wrong, then she would lose it all. She had to get every aspect right. Each possible scenario would have to be examined carefully, just to be sure nothing could go wrong. All of the variables had to be considered, including what would happen if a left turn were made instead of a
…show more content…
Taking a bottle of water from her cooler, she drank half without setting the bottle down. She realized over two hours had passed since she started plotting.
As she reviewed her notes, she saw holes in the plan. They would have to be fixed before she got in any deeper. The details were sketchy in some areas, which had to be rectified. She needed to know distance, speed, and weather conditions. A rainy night would be riskier than a clear night, as tire tracks and footprints showed up much better in mud than on a dry surface. Plus, the rain would make the chance of a clear shot more difficult. That was, provided the weapon of choice was going to be a gun.
So many decisions to make, but they would all be worth it in the end. She was, after all, planning the perfect crime. If it went according to plan, there would be nothing to tie her to the murder, and she could go on living her life. No one would put two and two together, because there was no way she could ever be the mastermind behind it all. Those who knew her would insist she was incapable of such horrors. She alone would plot and execute, without anyone knowing her true
When she was falsely accused in her case, the FBI thought she was the one who started it all. The FBI didn’t look at all of the evidence that was found at the crime or what she had said. They falsely accused her of the crime because they thought she was the one that robbed the bank and did extortion. There were gaps in her statement, and she couldn’t think straight. She was saying random words because she was so terrified of what happened to her. The SLA brainwashed her, and she didn’t know anything after they were done with her. She didn’t even know what day it was, so she does not know what happened in her case.
her and her business to become the way how she had wanted and to make sure that her
That night, many witnesses reported having seen a man changing the tire of his van and waving any possible help away angrily while others reported seeing a woman wandering around the side of the dangerous highway. More witnesses reported that Kenneth and his wife were having many violent disputes at their home that usually resulted in Kenneth pursuing an angry Yvonne around the block. The most compelling evidence against Mathison, however, is purely scientific. Detective Paul Ferreira first noticed that the extensive blood stains inside the Mathison van. After hearing Mathison’s original account, he summoned the assistance of famed forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee to analyze what he thought was inconsistent evidence. Blood stains on the paneling and the spare tire in the cargo area reveal low-velocity blood stains meaning that the blood probably dripped from Yvonne’s head onto the floor. The stains found on the roof and steering wheel were contact transfer patterns probably caused by Mathison’s bloody hands. Blood stains on the driver’s side of the van were contact-dripping patterns which indicate that Mathison touched the inside of the van multiple times before and after moving his wife’s body. The final groups of blood stains on the instrument panel of the van were medium-velocity stains which show investigators that Mathison probably struck his wife at least once in the front seat causing the blood to fly from her open head wound. The enormous amounts of blood inside the van lead prosecutor Kurt Spohn to investigate the Mathison case as a murder instead of a misdemeanor traffic violation.
In determining which crime theory is most applicable to the Andrea Yates murder case, one must establish a position on her guilt or innocence. If one agrees that the original 2001 verdict of guilty is correct then the Classical theory would best apply. Beccaria’s Classical theory asserts that people think before they proceed with criminal acts. When one commits a crime, it is because the individual decided it would be advantageous to do so, when one acts without benefit of effective punishment (Pratt, 2008). However, if one agrees with the 2006 verdict of not guilty by reason o...
because she was not only betrayed but was also tossed to death when no one helped her during
And she revelled in it, before it became too dangerous. She, unblinkingly, sent countless people to their deaths; she effortlessly imposed dreadful fear upon the young girls in the village, to the extent that one was reduced to insanity. She thought not once to stop, the euphoric indulgence was too great for her, because she could, she did. Ironically throughout her diabolical reign the one redeeming feature she possessed enforced her actions and accusations most powerfully, her illusive childlike innocence.
.... If she obeyed by the rules her church has laid out for her, she would undoubtedly make the attempt to avoid Sykes' death, but she decided not to. She, a woman who was abused for 15 years, walked away from her husband's demise without pity, anger, or even hatred. That is a scary revenge that one could never imagine.
There have been several famous legal cases where an individual commits a crime decades ago before it was revealed. The question here is whether the person who committed the crime long ago should still be punished even though he/she has been clean ever since the wrongdoing. Some people would say that it depends on the severity of the crime; some would say you should pay for your crime no matter what you have committed. The matter of whether a person should be punished for what he/she has done long time ago arises in the Law and Order episode “White Rabbit”. In this episode, Susan Forest was found twenty-three years after she took part in a robbery intended as a protest against the Vietnam War. During the robbery, a policeman was killed and the case here is whether Susan should be punished for a crime she participated long time ago. According to rule and idea of Categorical Imperative given by Immanuel Kant in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Susan should be sentenced for the crime she did no matter how long ago it happened or how upstanding of a member she is in the society.
... of protecting him. Whether she knew that this is what she had done or not will never be solved, the mystery remains.
In 1969 the first crime scenario took place with the murder of a man called Gary Hinman. According to Wikipedia “Atkins claimed she didn’t know a crime was going to take place, although she wrote in her 1977 book that she went to Hinman's home to get money and knew that it was possible they were going to kill him”. This fact proves her dishonesty to accept that she was part of the crime, which she later contradicts by writing the fact a possible crime in her book. This declaration just reveals her full participation and agreement in the murder of this man in a search for money.
...d down so that no one would ever doubt the truth of her horror”. This is an example that she is examined as a freak and as evil for all the bad that she has done even though it is not serious.
out of her head endlessly. It was a sight to see. Who would have ever
In regard to the O.J. Simpson trial, this would have been a task easily accomplished. As the victim’s ex-husband and someone who was knowledgeable of Nicole Brown Simpsons daily routine, it would have been extremely easy for Simpson to place her in a specific place at a specific time. Unfortunately for Ronald Goldman, he happened to be returning a pair of sunglasses at that time, and became a victim himself. Following the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, on June 17th, 1994, O.J. Simpson was charged with two counts of first murder under special circumstances. Some aspects of the crime that occurred proving O.J. After an investigation, a suspect is arrested, which is again only possible if the police have probable cause to believe the individual committed the crime.
"The ends justifies the means" Clearly, she did it to bring awareness to the forgetting outside