well i imagine first we'd have to find the differences between serial and mass murderers..this prompted me to check some things out....first there is! a difference between serial killers and mass murderers...http://www.serialhomicide.com/defini...al-killers.htm (From Eric W. Hickey's "Serial Murderers and Their Victims)

Lunde (1976) recognized and noted distinctions between the mass killer and the serial killer, notably that the mass killer appears to suffer from psychosis and should be considered insane. By contrast he found little evidence of mental illness among serial killers. Danto (1982) noted that most serial murderers may be described as obsessive-compulsive because they normally kill according to a particular style and pattern.

Even before American society became aware, in the early 1980s, of serial murder as anything more than an anomaly, researchers had begun to classify multiple killers and assign particular characteristics and labels to them. Guttmacher (197 described the sadistic serial murderer as one who derives sexual gratification from killing and who often establishes a pattern, such as the manner in which they kill or the types of victims they select, such as prostitutes, children, or the elderly. Motivated by fantasies, the offender appears to derive pleasure from dehumanizing his or her victims.

now mass murderers are a little closer to what i had in mind...
Most mass murderers are male, white, conservative and come from relatively stable, lower-middle-class backgrounds. They are not usually adopted, illegitimate or institutionalized as children. They are usually people who aspire to more than they can achieve. They see their ambitions thwarted, and blame other people for keeping them down. They feel excluded from the group that they wish to belong to, and develop an irrational, eventually homicidal, hatred of that group. Invariably, they choose to die in an explosion of violence directed at a group they feel oppresses, threatens, or excludes them.
There are three types of mass murderers, the family annihilators, the paramilitary enthusiasts, and the disgruntled workers. They all tend to be young, white, males with easy access to weapons. Unemployment, loneliness, a family breakup, or just a tongue lashing from a supervisor can trigger their deadly rage. Though a phenomenon usually related to postal workers, it's becoming commonplace in high schools throughout the U.S., as well as in the Red Army in the former Soviet Union. Strangely, Australians and New Zealanders are also prone to sudden fits of lethal madness. Most rampagers tend to save the last bullet for themselves. Those that don't are usually declared legally insane.
http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/murder1.html

so i guess serial killers have the chemical imbalance and their reasons for doing so are often just excused...however the sniper would be more along the lines of a mass murderer which is often society driven...

not really... a mass murder is someone who kills a number of people one time within a a period of time.

a serial killer is someone who kills out of deeper needs. who kills today, cools down for a period of time and comes to realize that they liked it and need to do it again and will repeat. but you see the same trend. kill, cool off kill cool off kill cool off, whereas in a mass murderer you see KILL KILL KILL as much as you can until you stop for good or are stopped for good.

i would say again that serial killers and mass murderers are similar while ery differnt. serial killers are more of a mix between insanity, chemical imbalances, sociatal influences truamatic childhoods and pure blood lust in some kind of combination while Mass murderers are more about making a point.
by these definitions that yo posted Peter Sutclif, Ted Bundy and Jeffry Dhamer were all mass murderers and not serial killers even though they were mentally sound, had perfectly normal brains form what we know.. and never suffered any kind of overly traumatic experiences as children.

but my original point was that the sniper is society driven...and i'm defending that point, unless he's getting some sort of sexual satisfaction...he may have already killed himself...how would they know...there haven't been anymore killings...have there?

i know nothing about peter sutclif...but ted bundy and jeffery dhamer did get sexual satisfaction from their killings...even dhamer himself said he was trying to make a perfect love slave...and ted bundy i believe was the one that would kill only dark haired girls that parted their hair in the middle...son of sam only killed lovers...all something they had a fixation on...

did you read any of the links i posted? both go into detail between the famous mass murderers and serial killers...what drove them and what differentiated them...

sex isnt a neccessity for a serial killer. Look at Albert Fish he murdered children and ate them (basis for hannibal lecter) and was adament to his death that he never touched them sexually. I dont think that this sniper is particularally society driven, he could be chemically imbalanced, as well as suffered a bad childhood, or he could just be a killer like Ted Bundy was. Do you mean to imply that he is a mass murderer? because by definition he is not... by definition he is a serial killer, otherwise this would have already been finished. mass murderers by nature will climb a clock tower and pick people off until they are killed or stopped. serial killers relish the experience and wish to prolong it, so its obvious that the precautions he is taking (sniping from 600 yards, choosing shooting locations adjacent to major highways, picking seemingly random targets) are all meant to prolong his killing and blood lust so that he can get away to do it again. If he was society drive as a mass murderer he would just want to kill as many people as he could in a short period of time, IE the shooter in Texas.

i used Dhamer and such to say that not all serial killers are crazy and chemically imbalanced as you make it seem. THen again i wish you would check up on say Albert Fish who was a serial killer who didnt get an sexual satisfaction from his crimes. THeres other too im certain. Ill look for em.

ted bundy is considered a serial killer because he was very specific about what kind of girls he would kill, the cannibal ate only children...and just because it's sexually driven doesn't mean there's sex involved, it could be an inadequecy they have and find something to placate their need they are unable to fufill in a healthy manner, why did he choose children to eat? How do we know if the sniper is done or not?...he may have already killed himself...there's no common element tieing any of the people he shot together...and there have been no more killings since they were able to describe vehicles involved...to whoever it was...a serial killer can go months after a kill satisfied and normal...this guy killed eight in a week and stopped?

if you would read the sections i posted...it is stated that serial killers exhibit no "psychological disorders" from what i've read it's quite the contrary they end up being highly intelligent people able to focus normally in society until they get that...itch...you brought up the chemical imbalance theory...i just stated that it was my opinion that the sniper was driven by society...rather than acting out some video game fantasy...i don't think he's a serial killer...i think he's just someone that's trying to express a dislike for something...most of the people he killed were the average person anyone could run into on the street...

no Albert Fish was also a stuanch masochist his sexual needs were satisfied through sticking pins in his recktom and hanging himself to the point of death, he chose children because he said they taste better, and they were easier to overpower. He was afterall an older man.

Serial killers dont have to satisfy sexual needs by killing, many do not. There are deeper needs than just sexual needs. Typically its a need of control and the need to find some kind of order and superiority through that control. They want to own thier victims.

THe sniper i dont believe killed 8 people in 1 week i believe is was over several weeks with a kill, a day off, a kill a day off and not on the weekends which suggests that he has a normal fmaily life that on the weekends he is spending with some family members. and no there hasnt been killing lately.. we just got through the weekend and its colombus day, perhaps he has the day off of work and hes with his family.

Im sorry but there is NO way this guy is a mas murderer. He likes the control hes got, he enjoys the power and the owning of thier fear and lives. Hes got a definate methodolgy, the thing that make shim most likely to be a serial killer though is that he likes the ritual, thats why he goes to great lengths to get away and be careful not to caught. if he was just making this as a message his message will NEVER be known until he gets caught. And so far it seems he doesnt want to be caught, look at the lengths he goes to not to. Hes in this for the thrill and the feeling of it, for the experience of killing these people and for the power he derives from it... his killing serves a psychological need. he is getting something from it.

If he was a mass murderer he would have turned himself in or would be leaving letters rittled with propaganda like the Unibomber did. Or theres another scenario... hes some kind of terrorist. be it islamic or home grown american militant like TIm McVey was. But i even doubt that seeing how thats usually to prove amessage, and alls been quiet form the sniper. Ted kazinsky left letters, typed out literature, which was his reasoning for doing what he did. Tim McVey an idiot in his own right followed the Turner DIaries plan and attacked a federal building in one great attack (mass murder) this guy however kills, cools off then kills again with no messages, no meanings, its obvious he is a serial killer. allbeit a little less conventional than were used to.

A serial killer routinely stalks and kills victims. Someone who kills several times, each time killing once, is a Serial Killer. A Mass Murderer kills multiple people at once; the people who flew into the WTC and the Pentagon being examples. The suicide bombers in Israel are Mass Murderers.

A quick, easy definition.

so he may be a serial killer? but he may be a disgruntled family man that has a nag for a wife and some horrible child, he may be some bachelor that's unhappy that people have lives he doesn't...but we won't know until he's caught, if he even is caught and hasn't killed himself yet..he may have just completely left the area and moving on to where there's less heat? He may be waiting until the hype dies down so he can continue his hunting spree...no one knows...but there is a difference between a mass murderer, a serial killer...and terrorists too...that i'm not debating...but to make the sniper out to be some bundy...is an insult to serial killers in my opinion...

I didnt know serial killer shad much to be proud of... why is it an insult? i really canot comment further until you tell me why. again.. if he was a mass murderer he would have likely went out in a blaze of glory. To turn from an agitated family man into a rampaging and yet controllled murderer then to turn it back off again and kiss your wife goodnite and tuck your kids in is the kind of behavior that only serial killers portray. Mass murderers would go for the blaze of glory to lash thier pain out on everyone else and get caught. serial killers are smart, have thier MO, and are extra careful as so they can get away. This guy is clearly a serial killer.

Actually, the "Sniper" is really very humane by the standards of most Serial Killers. He's killed less people than many other Serial Killers; he kills fairly quickly, simply. He doesn't imprison his victims, or rape them, or torture them. He doesn't skin them alive and eat their remains. He doesn't hide their bodies, or stalk them for days.

there have been times working in grocery stores or even driving down the street that i've thought how easy it would be to shoot people, just to get them out of my way...it wasn't because i had some desire to overpower them, or some serial killer type of mentality...i just didn't want to deal with them...and killing them would be an easy out...fortunately i value my freedom and would not want to spend my life in jail...and then i stop and think what it'd be like to kill these people...and i felt bad about it...*shrugs* what sets this person apart from me other than he is doing it, and it's not my nature to kill?

anyone with intelligence can easily get away with a murder especially in a big city at a distance away...shell casings are easy to pick up, guns are easily taken apart and stashed in something as small as a briefcase...wear gloves, find the ideal hiding spot...it's easy to kill with a gun...however serial killers that are "famous" went to great lengths pulling off elaborate and brutal killings, often times grotesque and violent yet able to walk around as the "all american male" day after day, charming and good neighbors...even practicing good deeds...that takes a mindset that's different then hiding, shooting and running...just like a hunter...they hide in the woods covered with deer urine, waiting quietly until the deer comes into their site and bang...their dead, the deer doesn't know what happened and the people have meat for a year...he's not even getting dinner out of this...and just like any mass shooter, in a few weeks after he's done however it ends...no one will remember but those that loss families...do you think they'd make a movie, write some overpriced book while psychologists spend years studying him? He's just another person with a grudge...

i dont think so, most mass murderers again arent nearly as concentrated as he is. they would do thier killings in a small amount of time an hour to a day until they were caught or got bored with it. This guy IS hunting humans, but he also enjoys it, he enjoys the power of god he has over these peoples lives. I agree that typically a serial killer will opt for a knife or a hammer or something handheld that they have to personalize the experience with, but that doesnt mean that a killer wont use a gun, or choose victims at random. I think this guy has a blood lust he cant get over, and he doesnt have a particular methodology, he wasnt raped by his father so he wont shoot men that remind him of his father etc etc and yet he still needs to feel powerful and like he owns these people, like he has the ability to choose who is going to live and die. Thats why we see the kill one person, and a cool off period again and again with him. If he was just a mass murderer the scop of his killings would have been more than just 1, and all confined likely to one day.

The thing that makes you differnt Jordy than a serial killer is that your perception isnt nearly as similar to thiers. You woudlnt be serving any particular needs by killing people. Anyone can say they would like to kill someone just to get em outta the way but thats usually talk, not truth. The serial killers find themselves doing it time and time again out of a deeper need, not just for fun, not just to kill people, not to prove a point.

While he may be a 2nd rate killer compared to BUndy and such, he is still a serial killer.

well whatever he is...he's a poor excuse for a killer...and i'm glad his stories are now some little side click on cnn...i imagine his mentallity is the same as any hunter...they get the godlike attitude especially when they kill some seven point buck...the chances of that are slim but it's still a glory kill...and as soon as he realizes he's not making headlines...if he hasn't killed himself yet, he'll start again...not because of some psychological need but because he wants to be feared...i'd judge him as some lethal bully!

By Kari Lydersen
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, October 13, 2002; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Oct12.html


CHICAGO, Oct. 12 -- A rash of "serial press conferences" by Washington area authorities could be contributing to the series of shootings that have killed eight people in 10 days, according to forensic scientists speaking on a panel near Chicago today.

"When they're name-calling the guy, making fun of the guy, politically jockeying for sound bites on TV, they're taunting the guy with the rifle," Brent Turvey, an Alaska forensic scientist, said at the annual convention of the Academy of Behavioral Profiling. "They have to realize they're communicating with him; and when he responds, he responds with a gun."

Turvey and forensic psychiatrist Michael McGrath of Rochester, N.Y., described the sniper as motivated by anger and a desire for power, feeding off media attention.

"At first, we have the offender attacking the majority of locations in one day, then the weekend comes and nothing," Turvey said, referring to last weekend. "Over the weekend, he's sitting there listening to the media, and then he responds. We have an M.O. that is evolving depending on what's being said about him on TV."

The analysts described the Oct. 7 shooting of a 13-year-old boy outside a Bowie middle school as a direct response to authorities' comments.

"They were saying that everyone should go back to life as normal, that children would be safe at school, so the offender apparently responded to that by shooting a child," McGrath said.

Likewise, a tarot card found by authorities near the middle school should be viewed as part of a direct dialogue the sniper is having with the public, the analysts said.

"They're saying he's a wannabe, he wants to be God," McGrath said. "He's responding and toying with the authorities. He's saying: 'I don't think I'm God. I am God.' "

They downplayed the typical profile of "a young white male, loner, pathetic, coward -- just like the profile of the anthrax mailer," as Turvey described it. "If you want that type of profiling, you don't need to be doing any real investigation. What we need to be doing is examining crime scenes, bringing in homicide detectives. But I've been watching the evidence destroyed on TV live, people walking all over things, power-spraying blood off the sidewalk. That needs to stop."

While the victims apparently were chosen at random, the crime scenes could be significant. Turvey said the employment logs of the gas stations, post office and other killing locations should be examined, as well as the surveillance video from those and surrounding businesses.

"This could be a former employee, a disgruntled employee who was fired or quit under bad circumstances," said Turvey, author of "Criminal Profiling." "It is someone who is angry, who feels that he has been wronged in some way."

The academy is a professional association of more than 100 lawyers, criminologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and others interested in criminal profile techniques.

McGrath and Turvey said the killer shows no signs of mental illness, and they downplayed the likelihood that the sniper is a foreign terrorist or U.S. military or law enforcement officer.

"At first, I was thinking maybe it could be a terrorist who was cut off from their network," McGrath said. "But if that was the case, by this point they would have wanted people to know why they're doing what they're doing."

Stan Crowder, a military officer and professor in Marietta, Ga., said the ammunition used in the killings holds few clues.

"The caliber used is consistent with an M-16 military weapon or an AR-15, which is a law enforcement weapon," Crowder said. "He obviously has the weapon, knows how to use the weapon and probably has transportation. But that could apply to any Georgia hunter."

The scientists urged media restraint in describing the killer.

"From a public safety perspective, I think the media is doing a good job," Turvey said. But he warned against statements that characterize him as evil.

McGrath and Turvey agreed that the killer is bound to be caught as he becomes bolder and bolder.

"Is this the kind of guy who would go to a bar and start talking himself up?" Turvey said. "Definitely."


*i just read this...and since everything i've read, this is the first thing that i agree with