How Hunting A Serial Killer Actually Works | How Crime Works | Insider

My name is Mark Williams-Thomas and I am a former police detective. I now investigate some of the UK's most notorious and dangerous

killer

s, and that's how

crime

works

. People often misuse the term "

serial

killer

." So,

serial

killer applies to an individual who has killed three or more people over a period of 30 days or more. Do serial killers have an aura around them? Yes, some do, because you can't be a serial killer without having a certain air of respectability, a certain status in life. So yes, they have an aura. Do they intimidate me? No. Nobody intimidates me.

I have three serial killer cases that I have investigated specifically and in great detail. And that's the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe; Angus Sinclair is probably responsible for at least 10 other unsolved murders; and then Peter Tobin. I believe Peter Tobin is responsible for other murders, at least two others that I have been able to directly link him to. So one of the first steps to any major murder investigation is profiling. You look in terms of where the

crime

occurred, you go to the crime scene and then you start trying to build a picture of who the criminal might be.

I did new research on Peter Sutcliffe while he was in prison, who murdered 13 women, attempted to murder another eight and probably more in the 1980s. But my research on him really got to the heart of what he did. He was convicted and imprisoned because he suffered from schizophrenia. We try to put a name to everything, you know? a narcissist, a psychopath, a schizophrenic, you know, all these terms. I challenged him. I don't think he had schizophrenia. I was able to prove that he was a psychopath. He had all the signs of psychopathy and if he were prosecuted today, he would have gone to a conventional prison.

He wouldn't have gone to a hospital because he wasn't schizophrenic. He was a psychopath. Ted Bundy, when he has exaggerated his involvement in a crime, some of that is probably because he wants greater status over his own ego, wanting to be, you know, the best of the best or the most great of serial killers. And some of that could well be because they really believe it. I mean, very often serial killers believe what is not true. They use cognitive distortion constantly, because in order to commit the next murder, they have to mentally justify that they won't get caught.

Evidence is key for me. Because every murderer has, to some extent, some narcissism. There are many people who live among us every day who have the signs that we have associated with serial killers. Psychopathy, narcissism. That's part of some people's daily makeup and doesn't make them murderers. So once you have identified one or more potential suspects, your position is to try to find evidence in relation to them, and that will be to collect any of the forensic elements available, but also CCTV and external factors. The victim will give you his victimology, he will understand why he is a victim.

You will want to know what that person does on a day-to-day basis. Who they interact with, where they go. We know that very often serial killers return to the scene of their crime at some point. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, returned again to the scene of the murder of one of his victims. And the reason he did it is because he thought that potentially one of the items that he gave to his victims, a £5 note, could lead to him being found. He was so lucky that the police made a mistake and were so incompetent with their investigation of him that that £5 note didn't lead to him.

You just need that drop of DNA, you need that drop of sweat, that drop of blood, which is enough to link the murderer to the crime scene. We have lost too many cases due to cross contamination, due to lack of continuity. So while DNA can in some ways absolutely catch the criminal, sometimes DNA doesn't really make much of a difference. Even if it is your DNA, you have to be able to prove that that DNA should not be there. And the problem is, of course, that in the vast majority of murders, the murder is overwhelmingly committed by someone known to the victim.

So I set out to investigate whether Angus Sinclair was responsible for other murders, to completely destroy Angus Sinclair's life and rebuild it, starting from the beginning of his criminal behavior. We reached his wife. She told me about his life. Then we began to show this image of an individual who for six months went on a killing spree. He is different from today's serial killers, but when he committed his crimes in the 1970s, he committed them all the same way. Now criminals have changed because they realize that if I commit murder the same way over and over again, the police will link it.

But not in those days. There was a period of time before the CSI effect where killers killed the same way. And what we saw, certainly when we investigated Sinclair, is that all of his victims were murdered over a weekend and with their own article of clothing. We collected enough evidence. Unfortunately, he died and the crown was unwilling to prosecute him as he was already in jail. Tracking takes all sorts of different forms. Technology helps us enormously. So you can put listening devices in houses, you can put probes in houses, you can intercept phones, you can listen to phones.

We have to have a certain amount of authority. But as an individual, I have to be careful. I have to be on the right side of the law. I have to make it proportionate. But there are things I will do. You know, I'll send decoy packages to addresses. I can put trackers on packages that go to people's houses. You could put a listening device in someone's house. We can use trackers. We can put what we call lumps in the industry. We now have technology that allows us to group a car that receives audio, as well as showing us on a device in real time where that person is going.

I have used it. Therefore, social media plays a crucial role because, in general, people use it, particularly the demographics of the individuals that we potentially analyze in terms of potential suspects. Where people live, the records they keep, the memberships they have. People's complete social media footprint is now an integral part of any investigation. Due to the CSI effect of criminals, they are now aware that if they travel to another area, put distance between themselves and the place where the crime occurred, that police force will most likely not talk to another police force and therefore , will not win.

It will not be a joint thought in relation to the crimes that are taking place. Viewers and listeners will be surprised to learn that there is no national database on unsolved murders. So we have a murder that occurs in one part of the country, and there is no database where it can be located so that it can be compared in another part of the country. So serial killers often outwit the police and get into a position where, of course, they feel safe. They have gotten away with several murders. There are other people who sometimes write impersonating the murderer, they want to gain that fame and that completely distracts the investigation.

The Zodiac Killer. There are other cases. In Yorkshire Ripper, we had an individual who became known as Wearside Jack who wrote letters claiming to be the murderer. He wasn't. And so they went after the wrong person, which allowed them to eliminate Peter Sutcliffe somehow. Serial killers are arrested the same way any other murderer is arrested. Then you get into a position where you have reasonable grounds to arrest them and you go and arrest them. Arrests are carefully planned to create the least amount of disturbance and secure the most evidence. The biggest problem for arresting a suspect is the fact that it is not executed.

And, of course, the worst case scenario is that that individual disappears. You do not get it. You don't execute it. Or something happens to them. It's about answers, and this is when we have to understand the impact on families and loved ones of wanting answers. And if you can't give that because the individual is no longer there, then I think that's failing. Serial killers very, very rarely, very rarely can come and admit it. And again, serial killers, when arrested, perhaps for something unrelated or unrelated to serial murder, may well admit it, and one of those classic examples was Peter Sutcliffe, finally admitted when he was arrested because he was going to kill his last victim. , and he had a fake license plate.

I do a lot of interviews with criminals, suspected criminals, whether through my television work or conducting risk assessments on dangerous criminals. You can always get someone to talk. "How was it last night?" "What do you think of this place?" Then you have to keep at it and of course slowly take them to places where they are less comfortable, but then make them comfortable again. There are also good police and bad police. You know, it's about taking control. Get rid of barriers. Remove the tables. And I've seen too many interviews where the suspect takes control. Peter Tobin, who I've researched, would always talk in an interview, but he was angry.

He would tell you to go somewhere. He would be violently aggressive in his tone. He wouldn't engage with you at the level where you could have a proper conversation. While Angus Sinclair did not comment. There are times when I've watched Angus Sinclair's interviews and I think, "He's about to reveal it. He's about to say something." And I think police officers believe it too. You know, the thing about Angus Sinclair is that when he was being investigated for the murder of Catherine Reehill in 1961, his brother walked into the interrogation room in the space between the police officers and said to Angus: “Did you kill her?

If you did it, you have to tell the police." And he did. You know, this whole idea that body language is crucial and central to identifying someone, it's great in retrospect. It is brilliant. Once someone goes to jail and then you come out and say, "You know what? When he scratched his head, or when he raised his eyebrow, when he scratched his nose, he was clearly lying." Trash. When I interviewed Stuart Hazell for the murder of Tia Sharp, I knew Stuart Hazell was lying because the evidence told me so. He sat there and looked me in the eye telling me what he believed to be true, but I knew it was an interview with a murderer and that

actually

led to his subsequent arrest. 38 years in prison.

My interview took place at the opening of the trial at the Old Bailey, the central criminal court. It was critical to the prosecution's case. So the number one cause of false imprisonment in terms of finding the wrong person is that officers investigating the scene in major investigations become obsessed with a hypothesis, become obsessed with a suspect, and do everything they can to get evidence to make them certain. And that's why we have miscarriages of justice. Probably the most notorious case I have worked on, where the police identified a murderer and prosecuted him for what they considered the murderer, was that of Barry George in relation to Jill Dando.

I can tell you, and I've spent a ton of time researching that case, that he did not kill Jill Dando. Absolutely not. The police were completely wrong. They zeroed in on Barry George as a suspect and found evidence they believed was enough to secure a conviction. And that was. He was convicted. Of course, when it was then closely examined in terms of evidence, it was found to be completely and utterly incorrect, which is why he was acquitted. No, the police went after the wrong man. They got the tests they thought were right, and they never fit.

Let's not forget that in the case of serial killers, when they first get caught, they may have been killing for 20 or 30 years. And it is possible that only one or two of their victims will be caught and nothing will be known about the others. Thus, Angus Sinclair was convicted of three murders and one manslaughter in 1961 along with Catherine Reehill. But before that, he was prosecuted for two of those murders but was never convicted. And the reason he wasn't convicted is because his defense was that it was consensual. He was finally prosecuted when they obtained evidence showing otherwise.

As far as the Yorkshire Ripper victims were concerned, they were sex workers, and the police, until the fifth victim, did not recognize and feel that there was a real victim. So they brought in the first five victims. Serial killers can be prosecuted at the beginning of their crime or at the beginning of their crime period in court and get away with it, but continue to offend thereafter. The minimum penalty for murder is life in prison, but of course there are sliding scales with that. Our criminal justice system still needs a lot of work. I think in terms of life, the conviction rate in the US is worse than the UK.

It's quite possible that it's also about your criminal justice system. You know, the judicial process, the way all that is organized and the way the public testifies. If you, as a victim who gives first-hand testimony, feel that they are going to hang you, that they are not going to listen to you, that they are not going toto believe, that he is going to be vulnerable. So will you give proof? And of course, that hugely means that while you can arrest someone, you can't prosecute them, so the prosecution rate goes down. I think there has to be, rightly, a punitive effect.

And that is, first and foremost, certainly for serial killers. It has to be a punitive effect. But it also has to be restorative. You know, and that restorative does not mean that the individual is released into the community. What it means is that they understand why they committed their crimes, understand the impact on the victims. That restorative justice within the criminal justice system for serial killers is absolutely crucial, but the criminal justice system is not prepared for that. So, my background is as a former police detective. I was school captain at school and was a very active person.

And I thought, what could I do to stay outside and active? So I applied for Surrey and Hampshire. And at the same time I applied for those police forces, I was also offered a sports exchange to New Zealand to go play rugby. And they offered me a job in the police. And I thought, "Oh, I'll do that instead of going to play rugby." Now, apart from that, I don't regret anything in life. I wish I'd put that on hold, joined the police service and gone to play rugby. You know, my mental health over the last two and a half years has hit rock bottom.

Now I've realized that

actually

it's probably what I've seen, what I've done, it's the world I live in. I care about people, I care about the work that I do, and I think that if I didn't do that, I would become a very different person. But I recognize that in the years that I have seen the worst of the worst, I have seen the worst possible impact of crime. I know how powerful the media is. I know that if I can publish a program that can give people answers, then it will be useful. And I do, and anyone who watches my shows will see that it's not about me.

It's about getting evidence, using my skills and giving people answers. I am probably best known for my role in exposing Jimmy Savile. He did an hour-long program and as a result his name or this case appeared on the front pages for 41 consecutive days. As a result, numerous people were arrested and prosecuted, including Rolf Harris, Max Clifford and other very high profile people. I have a series on Netflix called "The Investigator" and I was the man who interviewed Oscar Pistorius for the first time.